(Maurice Duquesne) Matter and Antimatter (Arrow SC (BookFi)

Matter and
Antimatter
MAURICE DUQUESNE
SCIENCE
H I S book sets out to discuss the
T latest developments in nuclear
physics. T h e reason for its title,
MATTER AND ANTIMATTER, is that the
discovery of anti-protons, and anti-
neutrons, completing the list of anti-
particles, led physicists to coin the
word 'antimatter'.
This is an authoritative and lucid
account of the discovery of antimatter,
with a discussion of its implications
and possibilities. Professor Duquesne
shows briefly why classical mechanics
had to give way to relativity theory, and
then considers the relations between
the ideas of relativity and those of
quantum mechanics. Subjects covered
include the Bohr-Sommerfeld atom,
wave mechanics and indeterminism,
Dirac's theory, and the various tech-
niques that have been developed for
the investigation of nuclear particles.
T h e principles and uses of the linear
accelerator, cyclotron, synchro-cyclo-
tron, betatron, synchroton, cosmotron
and bevatron are briefly outlined, and
the prediction and identification of
anti-particles is described. Special
attention is paid to the detection of
neutral anti-particles and there are some
interesting suggestions on possible
occurrences of antimatter and its
relation to the passage of time.
MATTER AND ANTIMATTER
MATTER
AND
ANTIMATTER
MAURICE DUQUESNE
Director of Research in Nuclear Physics
at the Radium Institute, Paris
ARROW SCIENCE SERIES

ARROW BOOKS LTD
.'78-202 Great Portland Street, London, W.l
AN IMPRINT OF THE HUTCHINSON GROUP
London Melbourne Sydney

Auckland Bombay Toronto
Johannesburg New York
•
First Published in Great Britain 1960
Translated by
A. J. P O M E R A N S
from Matiere et Antimatiere
first published in France
© English translation
Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.. 1960
Made and printed in Great Britain

by Taylor Garnett Evans & Co. Ltd., Watford
CONTENTS page
Introduction 1
1 Atomic Theories 9
2 Relativity 19
3 Quantum Theory 34
4 The Bohr-Sommerfeld Atom and the 42
New Physics
5 Wave Mechanics and Indeterminism 56
6 Dirac's Theory 64
7 Experimental Physics at the Beginning of the 73
Twentieth Century: The Positive
Electron
8 The Neutron; Artificial Radio-activity; the 85
Neutrino and Mesons
9 Particle Accelerators and High-energy 97
Physics
10 The Production of Anti-Nucleons 107
11 Matter and Antimatter 118
Index 125
PLATES
facing page
Annihilation of Anti-proton 32
The Crab Nebula 33
Cygnus A 64
Globular galaxy M87 65
I
1
INTRODUCTION
The reader might wonder why a work setting out to

discuss the latest developments in nuclear physics
should be called Matter and Antimatter. The reason
is that the recent discovery of anti-protons and
anti-neutrons, completing the list of antiparticles,
has led physicists to coin the word 'antimatter . We
shall be careful in our use of this word, if only to
bring it down from the fantastic heights to which
the. popular press has elevated it.
On the whole, attempts at popularisation are
laudable enough, but when it comes to modern
physics they are fraught with danger. Here reality
is often represented by mathematical equations
beyond the reader's grasp, a fact which encourages
many a sensationalist writer to indulge in fantasies.
The current interest in anti-particles is by no means
due to their novelty—their existence was predicted
in a theoretical paper published as long ago as March
1930, and the first anti-particle (the positive electron)
was observed and identified in 1933. At the time the
news caused no stir outside the very narrow circle
of specialists.
Nowadays, the moment a new particle is identified,
it is announced to the public, and despite the reserve
of physicists, the popular press has no hesitation in
pontificating about its unknown properties.
Though not brand-new, therefore, the problem of
anti-particles is nevertheless of great interest, not
7
8 MATTER AND ANTIM \TTER
only because of the old questions it resolves but also

because of the new questions it poses.
The discovery of anti-protons and anti-neutrons
has confirmed the general validity of the theory,
presented by Dirac, a young English mathematician,
to the Royal Society on the 6th December, 1929.
Do anti-particles have the property of combining
to form a negative anti-nucleus which, together with
positive electrons would make up an anti-atom? Is
this how we must conceive the structure of so-called
antimatter?
Inasmuch as so small a book can do justice to the
labours of some of the greatest scientists of the past
thirty years, I shall try to show what discoveries have
led physicists to ask these and similar questions.
]
Atomic Theories
Up to the time when the atom bomb fell on

Hiroshima, the public had heard little about the
atom or its nucleus, though physicists had long
suspected that it contained gigantic reserves of
energy. Overnight, the atom, which had previously
not even been thought worthy of inclusion in the
school physics syllabus, had reached the headlines
of the daily press.
Since then, we have had more than enough
occasion to hear of it: atom bombs, hydrogen
bombs, cobalt bombs, atomic piles, atomic gener-
ators, and the use of radio-elements in medicine
and biology. During the last ten years a whole host
of new discoveries and technological applications
have made the term 'atom' a household word.
Even so, before we can understand the nature of
the atom, we must have an idea of the structure of
matter in general. A brief historical sketch of the
evolution of atomic theories will allow us not only
to distinguish between them but also to stress the
chief characteristics of modern physics.
New ideas often lead to confusion, to an impasse
or even to contradictions. Science has to mark time
until some hypothesis produces a clarification, i.e.
until it resolves the contradiction by means of
9
precise definitions, no matter if these run counter

to current thought, common sense or even apparently
to reason.
In this way new concepts often make their appear-
ance as mere 'words' without any concrete signi-
ficance. In the 19th century when the wave nature of
light was first demonstrated, science seemed to have
reached a dead end. Waves are propagated in elastic
media vibrating under the action of a force. Thus
air vibrates and propagates sound—air is the elastic
medium which carries the sound. Sound cannot be
propagated in a vacuum. Yet it is a vacuum which
fills interplanetary and interstellar space through
which light travels with a velocity of 300,000 km per
second. How could a vacuum provide the elastic
medium required for the propagation of light waves?
A new contradiction had made an already obscure
situation even more confused.
A mere 'word' led to a breaking of the deadlock:
the existence of 'ether', which served as the necessary
elastic medium, was postulated. Light was simply a
vibration of the ether. And the ether? . . . Well, it
was no good insisting on too strict a definition of its
properties—they were imponderable.
And for a time the ether did in fact serve its
purpose. But if mere words could be left to resolve
scientific problems, physics would very soon turn
into metaphysics. A word must explain, and in
explaining it must be integrated into the body of
knowledge to whose wider understanding it has
contributed. The word must be made to represent a
geometrical or mechanical image. It is in this way
that mathematics enters into physics.
ATOMIC THEORIES 11
The 'image' or model is an aid to scientific thought,
and for a time it takes the place of physical reality.
But only for a time, since science cannot rest on its
laurels, even when it has discovered a complete and
self-consistent explanation. The day comes when a
new experiment has to be interpreted. If the model
proves inadequate to this task, it has to be modified.
Further experiments may lead to further modifi-
cation until eventually the whole model may have
to be scrapped.
Sometimes a geometrical model becomes corroded
by a type of abstract formalism, and ends up as a set
of mathematical formulae which explains and
predicts nothing but itself.
'Words', 'models', 'mathematical formulae'—
atomic theory has gone through all these stages,
and this is true of every constituent element of the
atom, the nucleus no less than the electron.
The Greeks introduced the notions of the void and
the discontinuity of matter in order to solve what
they thought were the contradictions between
sensory experience and Being. Being—real existence
—was by definition eternal, immutable and static.
To explain such real phenomena as change and
motion, Leucippus and his pupil Democritus split
up 'Being' into atoms moving through a void. Like
'Being' itself, atoms were eternal and immutable, but
gave a better picture of external reality.
'We say sweet, we say bitter, we say hot. we say
cold, we say coloured—but in fact nothing exists
beyond atoms and the void'. (Democritus).
At first, the 'atom' was nothing but a 'word'
connoting certain abstract properties, the properties
of 'Being". But hardly a century had passed before

the Greeks made attempts to depict it. A desire to
understand the properties of matter, drove them to
investigate its form and motion.
The first to give a geometric description of the
atom was Epicurus, and Lucretius went into greater
detail still. However, the Greeks were concerned
with the surface of the atom alone. The problem of
the internal structure of these ultimate particles of
matter was not posed. The surface alone was thought
to account for all the known phenomena.
It was not until the 17th century, that the part
which mathematics could play in physics was more
fully recognised.
'No one can read the great book of the universe
who ignores its language, the language of mathe-
matics', said Galileo.
The Law of Gravitation had enabled Newton to
explain Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion; the
same Law ought equally to hold for atoms. Mathe-
matics had begun to pierce the atomic surface,
formerly the sole seat of all atomic properties, but
experimental science was unprepared for this task.
We shall see what powerful means were eventually
needed for penetrating into the interior of the atom.
Newton's age lacked these means, and atomic
theory, though freed from the naive surface picture,
was long to remain bogged down in abstraction.
In the next century a new start was made. Experi-
mental chemists, under the indirect influence of the
atomic theory of Democritus, showed that the
chemical laws of combination seemed to point to
discontinuities in matter. Thus, after twenty cen-
ATOMIC THEORIES 13
turics, the atomic structure of matter was given an
experimental basis. But in being rediscovered the
atom had once again become a 'word'.
'If I had my way 1 should erase the word " a t o m "
from the vocabulary of science, convinced as 1 am
that it transcends experiment, and that in chemistry
we must never transcend experiment'. (Dumas.)
During the 19th century, atoms and determinism
were the undisputed masters of science. The 'pro-
portional numbers' of the elements were calculated,
and the properties of gases explained, by assuming
gases to consist of perfectly elastic particles. Although
the order of magnitude of the atomic radius (l() - 8 cm)
was known, no attempt was made to construct a new
model. Something was missing, and atomic theory
was marking time.
In the course of the 20th century, the atom,
indestructible according to Demoeritus. solid accord-
ing to Newton, indivisible by definition, began to
fall apart in the hands of physicists, who had by then
found a new means of studying it. viz. the passing of
electric currents through gases. The ensuing decom-
position of the atom led to advances in atomic
theory, since the newly discovered constituent parts
led to the reconstruction of a model of the atom,
thus providing an explanation of the properties of
matter.
Since gases are not perfect insulators, a current
passing through them behaves in much the same
way as it does in passing through an electrolyte.
The reader will recall that the number of atoms
liberated during electrolysis is proportional to the
quantity of electricity passing through the solution.
In about 1880, this result led physicists to postulate

an elementary electric charge. This charge was even
named—it was called the electron.
The study of the passage of a current through a
gas inside a tube is simplified by the fact that the
gaseous particles are not in contact with one another,
and that no other forces than those resulting from
atomic collisions need be considered.
At very low pressures (of the order of 10~5 mm of
mercury), rays can be seen emanating from the
cathode of the tube to produce a fluorescent spot
on the opposite wall of the tube. The study of these
cathode rays (and particularly their deflection by
magnetic and electric fields) led scientists to conclude
that the rays were made up of negatively charged
high-velocity particles, i.e. the electron had been
discovered experimentally.
This particle of electricity was characterised by
two magnitudes: its electric charge e and its mass m.
The passage of a current through the electrolyte was
then explained as follows:
In solution, the molecules of a compound are
dissociated into two ions—one charged with negative
and the other with positive electricity. Thus sodium
chloride (NaCl) in aqueous solution splits up into
two ions, Cl~ and Na + . The electric field between the
electrodes leads to a displacement of the charges,
the Na + ion travelling towards the cathode and the
Cl~ ion towards the anode.
The passage of a current through a gas at weak
pressure can be explained by supposing that, in the
very strong electric field between the electrodes,
certain ions of the gas are accelerated by the electric
ATOMIC THEORIES 15
field, thus becoming projectiles which can break up
the other, neutral, atoms. The electrons which
constitute the cathode rays are the products of this
destruction. They are accelerated in a sense opposite
to the remaining parts of the atoms, the positive
ions, which form the so-called canal rays.
Since electrons could be split off from all the
elements, they were clearly constituent parts of
atoms; the problem of the atomic structure had
been posed anew.
J. J. Thomson thought that the electrons were
embedded in a homogeneous and indivisible sphere
of positive electricity, in such a way that each
electron was held in a state of equilibrium due to the
attractive force of the positive charge on the one
hand, and the repulsive force of the electrons on the
other.
Fig. 1
J. J. T h o m s o n ' s model of the atom. The negative electrons are enclosed
in a sphere of positive electricity.
This model (see Fig. 1) was used in an attempt to

explain the following known properties of matter:
1. The emission of visible light by bodies raised
to a high temperature.
2. The emission of X-rays of the same nature as,

but of very much smaller wave length than, visible
light, whenever cathode rays strike against an
obstacle.
3. The emission by heavy atoms of a, p and y
radiation: i.e. natural radioactivity discovered by
Pierre and Marie Curie.
a-rays, somewhat similar to, but much faster than,
canal rays, were identified as twice-ionised helium
atoms.
P-rays, though much faster than cathode rays
were found to consist, like the latter, of negative
electrons.
y-rays were found to be similar to X-rays but much
more penetrating.
J. J. Thomson explained the atomic emission of
light and X-rays by assuming the electrons to be in a
state of vibration.
v
Fig. 2
Jean Perrin's model of the atom. The electrons revolve about the central
positive charge.
In this model, the vibrations of the internal rings

of electrons would account for the emission of
X-rays and those of the external (positive) rings for
the emission of visible light. A different model was
ATOMIC THEORIES 17
suggested by Jean Perrin (see Fig. 2), who assumed
that each atom was a miniature solar system in which,
at relatively immense distances, the electrons re-
volved about a 'sun' of positive electricity, and on
orbits along which the electric force and the force of
inertia were in equilibrium.
After Rutherford's experiments on the scattering
of a-particles in passing through a metallic screen,
Jean Perrin's model was adopted and improved,
while that of J. J. Thomson had to be discarded.
The fact that a projectile can cross a barrier made
up of many thousands of atoms without being
deflected by them, makes it clear that the atoms
cannot be the 'solid' structures J. J. Thomson
imagined them to be. On the other hand, a 'planetary
atom' with its empty spaces could easily explain the
experimental results.
The new picture of the atom looked as follows:
A positive charge at the centre contains almost
the entire mass—this is the nucleus. On the basis
of Rutherford's experiments its radius was calculated
to be of the order of 10 - 1 3 cm. Recalling that the
radius of the atom is of the order of 10 -8 cm we see
that the nucleus, representing the entire positive
charge of the atom, is 100,000 times smaller than the
latter. The large space surrounding the nucleus
contains negative charges, i.e. the planetary electrons
which revolve about the nucleus with varying
velocities, and whose number is such as to render the
atom electrically neutral.
However, when physicists tried to use this new
model to explain other phenomena, they encountered
new difficulties and a host of contradictions.
Highly complicated calculations and extremely

delicate experiments were needed before the arrange-
ment of the electron shells was understood well
enough to account for all the experimental results.
In the course of this work, which, inter alia, was to
lead to the notion of anti-particles, there was born a
new physics whose assumptions removed the con-
tradictions besetting its path.
To make any progress, scientists at the beginning
of the 20th century had to submit all the basic con-
cepts of science to a strict and critical re-examination.
They had to revise scientific principles and methods.
They were forced in particular to re-examine their
notions of time and space and to question the con-
tinuous nature of energy—the result was relativity
and quantum theories. Probability began to force its
way irresistibly into the new physics, and gave rise
to wave mechanics.
We shall give a rapid sketch of these new theories
and show how they enabled physicists to resolve
the difficulties with which they were faced at the
dawn of the 20th century.
4
Relativity
Referring to the theory of Relativity, Emit Borel

once remarked: 'Einstein has not only given us a
physical theory, he has provided us with a new way
of looking at the world".
An attempt to convey to the public a theory that
has upset our most familiar concepts--those of
space and time—is not likely to be a rewarding task.
Acquaintance with this theory is, however, essential
if one is to understand the subject-matter of this
book: the significance of anti-particles.
The better to appreciate the originality of Ein-
stein's contribution, we shall first outline the classical
mechanics of Galileo and Newton.
In its study of motion (kinematics), mechanics
introduces two quantities, space and time. In the
old mechanics these two quantities were independent
of each other.
We cannot observe a body M moving in space
without a suitable reference system. Every such
reference system has an origin O and three per-
pendicular axes O.y. O r and Or.
The position in space of the moving body M is
defined by three co-ordinates .v. r and r, which are
functions of the time /. M is thus characterised by
four magnitudes, three of space and one of time.
19
In three-dimensional physical space, the moving

body M describes a trajectory which can be repre-
sented geometrically.
Geometry treats of the properties of space and of
the possible constructions in it. We shall now define
some of the elements which make these geometrical
constructions possible.
For Euclidean geometry the essential element is a
straight line, which is given certain a priori proper-
tics.
Euclidean geometry assumes that through a given
point there can be only one straight line parallel to
a given straight line.
Ml (A,. I-,. )
M' (V| • dx. r, • dr, r, • d:)
M, M, ds
<A- </.v- • i/v-' • dz-
For ordinary purposes, the properties of space
are adequately described by the simplified picture of
Euclidean geometry, and time can be considered to
be independent of space (see Fig. 3). In other words.
R E L A T I V I T Y 23
time can be represented by a magnitude t which is

independent of the three magnitudes v, r.
Having adopted definitions of space and time, we
must now choose a reference system in which the
laws of mechanics apply.
Two such systems are possible:
1. The Copernican System of Co-ordinates—The
origin is the centre of gravity of the solar system.
The three axes O.v. Or, Oz are determined in space
by the fixed stars.
2. The Galilean System of Co-ordinates—A system
of co-ordinates which is in rectilinear translatory
motion with respect to the Copernican system of
co-ordinates (i.e. moving with a constant velocity).
In three dimensional Euclidean space, two points
M] and M 2 , infinitesiinally close, and defined by the
co-ordinates:
(where dx, dy, dz are infinitely small increments of

the co-ordinates .v, r, z), are separated by a distance
MiM 2 — ds.
By the theorem of Pythagoras, ds is given by the
equation:
ds2 =• dx- -f dy- -r dz1-
This expression characterises Euclidean space, in
which the definition of ds2 does not involve time or
physical magnitudes.
How can we pass from one Galilean system to
another Galilean system? In other words, once we
have stated that a point M(.v', y\ z\ t') in a reference

system O' moves with uniform velocity v with respect
to another reference system O, how can we define
the point M (x, v, r, t) in O with respect to O ?
To simplify the problem, let us suppose that O'
moves with respect to O along the Ox axis (Fig. 4)
and that when t = O, O' coincides with O.
o o «>°
i- u V K
x
+ x
f
0' M x' 0 ' "v" M
Fig. 4
Classical rule for the composition of velocities.
O M - O O ' + O ' M ; .v - vt -r x'
Clearly the only co-ordinates affected by the

motion are those along the direction of the displace-
ment. We then obtain the following system of
equations, known as the Galilean transformation:
Vt
A"' — X
y' = y
Z' •— z
r -- t
This system of equations allows us to pass from
M(x, v, r, r), the co-ordinates of M with respect
to O.
to M(.v\ v', t'). the co-ordinates of M with res-
pect to O'.
It follows from these equations that the distance
between two fixed points is the same, i.e. invariant,
no matter whether their co-ordinates are referred to
the system O or to the system O'.
In other words, the Galilean transformation
leaves distances invariant.
RELATI VITY 23
Nor does the transformation alter the form of the
fundamental equation of Newtonian dynamics
F - my, where y is the acceleration of a body of
mass m acted upon by a force F.
The fact that the equations of classical mechanics
remain invariant under the Galilean transformation,
leads to the conclusion that no mechanical experi-
ment can ever demonstrate the motion of a system O'
with respect to a system O.
Now, while the equations of classical mechanics
remain invariant under the Galilean transformation.
Maxwell's electro-magnetic equations do not. If this
is true, properly designed experiments involving
electro-magnetic phenomena such as the propagation
of light, should show a displacement of the earth
with respect to the ether. Such an experiment was
made by Michelson and Morley, but the result was
negative.
The theory of relativity was born out of this
difference between the mechanical and electro-
magnetic equations or, from an experimental point
of view, out of the negative result of the Michelson
and Morley experiment.
Light, according to Fresnel, was a vibration of tfie
ether, i.e. the 'elastic medium' supporting the light
waves and which filled the cosmos. Once Maxwell
had shown that light could be explained as being
propagation of an electro-magnetic field, the impor-
tance of the ether diminished. The ether simply
became the 'medium in which Maxwell's equations
hold'.
In its annual orbit about the sun, the earth moves
with a velocity of about 30 km/s. with respect to the
ether. If the ether were immobile, the observer's

motion with respect to it ought to be demonstrable.
The Michelson-Morlay experiment had precisely
this aim in view.
Let us fix in the ether a co-ordinate system O.v,
and on the earth a co-ordinate system O'.v' in
uniform rectilinear motion with velocity v with
respect to O.v. A source of light in O emits a light
wave which is propagated along O.v with velocity c.
This wave is represented by the displacement with
velocity c of a point M in O.v.
Let us measure the time taken by this wave to
travel a distance AB / i n O'.v'.
l.v/ case: v = O. O' does not move with respect
to O.
To travel the distance AB, light takes the time
2nd case: v O. O' is displaced in the positive

sense of O.v.
The relative velocity of M in the system O' is
c — v, and the time taken to travel the distance AB is
l>rd case: v < O. O' is displaced in the negative

sense of O.v.
The relative velocity of M in the system O' is
c 4- V', and the time taken to travel the distance AB is
an
In short, we ought to observe that /i h d
that t2 • 1\ > t v
RELATI VITY 25
The experiment was negative; the classical rule for
adding velocities had broken down. The velocity of
light was found to be constant and independent of
the motion of the source with respect to the observer.
(Velocity, it will be recalled is a ratio resulting from
the division of space by time.)
O M c
Fig. 5
Since the time remained constant, Lorentz. in

order to account for the Michelson-Morlay experi-
ment assumed that moving bodies or systems con-
tract in the direction of their motion. Lorentz set up
a new system of equations, known as the Lorentz
transformation, to replace the Galilean transform-
ation. Using the same notation as before:
If v/c is small, i.e. if the velocity of O' with respect

to O is small compared with that of light, the equa-
tion is reduced to Galileo's formula, and in particular
we obtain t' = t. Furthermore, it is found that
Maxwell's equations remain invariant under the
Lorentz transformation.
In 1905, after having submitted the classical
notions of absolute time and space to a trenchant
examination, Einstein proposed an elegant explan-
ation of the Lorentz transformation.
He enunciated the following two principles:
1. The laws of physical phenomena, and par-
ticularly the laws of electro-magnetism are the same
in all Galilean reference systems.
2. For all Galilean reference systems the velocity
of light is the same in all directions.
The first principle meant that it was the Lorentz
transformation and not the Galilean transformation
which was physically significant. In other words no
experiment in magnetism, as well as in mechanics,
made within a Galilean system could ever lead to a
demonstration of its motion with respect to another
Galilean system.
The second principle involved a modification of
the law of the addition of velocities.
In classical mechanics, if v is the velocity of O'
with respect to O, u and u the velocities of a point M
in O' and O, the theorem of the addition of velocities
is expressed as:
u a' f v
In Einstein's mechanics, this theorem becomes:
29
RELATI VITY
ll' - v
If s r is small wc recover the classical law:

ll ll' < v
In the preceding examples, where the velocity of
M, a source of light in O, is equal to c (u ~ <•),
classical mechanics leads to it' c ! v, while Ein-
stein's mechanics leads to a' c, irrespective of
r, — a result in perfect agreement with experiment.
We stated earlier that the element els2, defined by
ds2 dx2 - <ly2 : dz2
characteristic of Euclidian space, had the same value
in all Galilean systems. The Lorentz equations, in
introducing a transformation of the time / associated
with an event E at the point M (.v, r, r), changes the
form of the element els2. We must now consider the
representation of an event in four-dimensional space
(.v, v, r, t), known as the Minkowski four-dimen-
sional space.
If we consider the displacement of an electro-
magnetic wave between two infinitesimally close
events E] (.V), I'I. Z|, t\) and E^ ( v>. J-T, 1and if
we designate this clement of space by da, we obtain
do2 d\: • dy2 — dz2 (Fig. 6). If dt is the time
taken by the wave to cross the space do, and if, as
we have seen, the velocity of light is constant
(do2
c-J, we obtain:
\dr2
ds2 c2dl2 — do2 - O
Thus the expression ds- c dt — dx2 — di - - dz2

2 2
has the same value in all Galilean systems, and like

the ds2 of Euclidean space remains constant in all
ordinary three-dimensional space, ds is the 'world
line' and if two events Ei and E 2 correspond to a
velocity lower than c ds2 O, this interval becomes
O for velocities equal to that of light; i.e. ds2 O.
Fig. 6
(a) Ordinary space cfa2 dx2 dv2 th2
(b) Space-time ds2 r2dt2 dx2 dy2 dz2
The negative result of the Michelson-Morley

experiment together with the Lorentz transform-
ation which accounts for this negative result de-
manded a modification of our ideas about the
structure of space.
Other modifications were equally imperative. It
was necessary that the equations of dynamics, just
like those of electro-magnetism should also remain
invariant under the Lorentz transformation. How-
ever, the equations of Newtonian dynamics which
remain invariant under the Galilean transformation,
do not remain invariant under the Lorentz trans-
formation. Thus Newtonian dynamics had to be
modified.
Designating by />' in v. the momentum of a
point of mass m and of velocity v, the fundamental
equation of classical dynamics
RELATI VITY 29
r />;•/
becomcs
i: dp
r
<//
In relativity dynamics, the momentum p is ex-
pressed by p 7
which is consistent with
i —r;
(/;' niv) so long as we make m - y'1'0 ^ , (where
/)/o is the inertial mass of the material point, and /;;

its relativistic mass).
It will be seen that in increases with v. In classical
dynamics, a material point, not acted upon by any
force, describes rectilinear uniform motion with
respect to the Galilean axes. In the new dynamics it
describes a curved 'world line' for which <ls2 O
in Minkowski's four-dimensional space. Though
Minkowski's space is no longer Euclidian, straight
lines and planes nevertheless play a paramount role
in it. In this four-dimensional space, light has a
rectilinear 'world line' with i/s2 O. Amongst these
trajectories or "world" lines there are some with a
privileged direction corresponding to ds2 O,
which runs from the past to the future.
In classical mechanics, the energy of a particle of
mass ni and of velocity v was given by its kinetic-
energy :
E ' mv-
In relativity mechanics the energy of a particle is

given by the expression
or else by E2 c- (p 2 \ m 2 c 2 ).
When the velocity of the particle is zero (v O), its

energy is greater than zero, and its value m$c 2
represents a new magnitude in physics: the energy
of the particle at rest. In the course of developing a
dynamics which would remain invariant under the
Lorentz transformation, physicists had thus become
aware of the close correlation between mass and
energy. This correlation had been ignored by classical
physics. Einstein shook the modern world by intro-
ducing matter as an inexhaustible store of energy.
The restricted theory of relativity introduced many
other fruitful ideas into physics. We shall discuss
these at greater length when we come to Dirac's
notion of material particles with negative energy.
For the time being we shall merely note that in
Einstein's equation
E2 C2(p2 | ,„2(.2),
E can have a positive or negative value, i.e.

E <\ r-
Similarly, if ds is positive and dt O in the

equation ds2 c2dl2 — da2, which allows us to put
the relativity mass
RELATI VITY 31
dt
in will be positive, and the energy E mc2 will also

be positive.
But there is no mathematical reason why we
should not make ds negative and, with dt O. this
always gives a negative value for the mass, and thus
for the energy E.
At first this problem did not concern physicists
unduly, but in about 1930 the success of quantum
theory and the development of wave mechanics
forced them to look more closely into the matter.
The consequent experimental work led to the dis-
covery of anti-particles.
In emphasising the interdependence of space and
time, the restricted theory of relativity focussed
attention on the structure of space about which
Euclidian geometry had made certain a priori
assumptions.
In 1916, when Einstein was endeavouring to
generalise relativity theory in such a way that the
laws of motion, including those produced by gravita-
tional forces, could be expressed in the simple form
of the restricted theory of relativity, he was forced
to use a more highly generalised geometry than that
of Euclid.
Riemann had rejected the idea that space was
independent of the phenomena that took place in it,
and had therefore formulated a much more general
element ds2, i.e.:
2
ds X Gik dXi dXk
i,k
x = x\, y = x2, z = X}, ct = .v4

The Euclidian element ds2 could only represent an
empty universe, and the element ds2 of Minkowski's
four-dimensional space held only for the restricted
theory of relativity. By introducing Riemann's
element ds2, Einstein effected a synthesis between
geometry and physics. He showed, in effect, that the
determination of the coefficients G d e p e n d s on the
distribution of masses in the universe. This new
four-dimensional space assumes neither straight
lines nor planes—it is curved and the geodetic lines
of the element ds2 define the notion of the masses
and the propagation of light.
Fig. 7
(a) Euclidean space-time, (b) Riemann space-time.
Newton had explained the appearance of gravita-

tional forces by means of the law of universal
gravitation:
mm'
T h e track of an a n t i - p r o t o n , P, produced by the
B e v a t r o n at t h e I ' n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a a n d r e c o r d e d in
a l i q u i d - p r o p a n e b u b b l e c h a m b e r . T h e a n t i - p r o t o n is
a n n i h i l a t e d o n s t r i k i n g a p r o t o n in a c a r b o n n u c l e u s ,
p r o d u c i n g a ' s t a r ' of p i - m e s o n s . T h e s h o r t t r a c k at C is
the s u r v i v i n g f r a g m e n t of t h e n u c l e u s .
(Hale)
T h e C r a b Nebula in T a u r u s is 4,000 light-years distant
and is a member of our own Galaxy. It consists of the
expanding gases of a star which exploded as a supernova
in A.D. 1 0 5 4 , and is a powerful radio-transmitter with a
strong magnetic field. Its radio output of io 2 4 kilowatts
is consistent with the presence of antimatter.
RELATI VITY 33
In the general theory of relativity, gravitational
forces result from the use of curvilinear co-ordinates
in a space that is curved by the presence of matter
within it.
We shall conclude with some remarks on the
limits of classical mechanics and Euclidian geometry.
For ordinary purposes, the world is contained
between limits represented by the terrestrial radius of
6,370 km, or 6-37.10 8 cm on the one hand, and by
the dimensions of bacteria, i.e. 0• 1 ja or 10 - 5 cm on
the other hand. Within these limits, Euclidian
geometry and classical mechanics are in agreement
with experiment and thus play a useful role.
But man has carried his experiments well beyond
these limits into the realm of the atom and into
that of the stars. Now, the radius of the atomic
nucleus is 10 - 1 3 cm, and the distance separating us
from the nearest star is 3 • 1018 cm. The proven
everyday tools were found wanting when it came to
these dimensions. Other tools had to be forged, of
which the old ones were a very good approximation
on our normal scale.
Einstein's mechanics and Riemann's geometry
were the new tools which allowed man to extend his
knowledge well beyond the limits within which he
had previously been held prisoner.
3
Quantum Theory
Despite the inroads it had made into classical ideas

of space, time, mass and energy, Einstein's mechanics
had done nothing to shake the notion of the con-
tinuity of physical magnitudes. It was left to Planck,
in the course of constructing a physics on the atomic
scale, to introduce discontinuous variations of
physical magnitudes.
Quantum theory was born out of the need to
interpret experiments on black body radiation.
A 'black body' is one whose inner walls emit and
absorb radiation depending solely on the tempera-
ture of the body and not on its shape or nature.
In their attempts to predict the distribution of
black body radiation for a given temperature,
scientists found that new hypotheses had to be made.
It was discovered that the total radiation per unit
surface is proportional to the fourth power of the
absolute temperature of the black body—this is the
Stefan-Boltzmann law (W - kT*).
If we consider the energy due to radiations whose
wave lengths lie between k and k -4- dk to be E cfk
per second per unit area, then the total energy
emitted per second per unit area is given by:
f* 00
W Jfl E x dk
34
QUANTUM 1HI ORY 35
4
This, by Stefan's Law, is equal to A:T .
Now, for a given temperature T. E x can be experi-
mentally determined for every wave length /.. and
a graph of against X can be plottted (Fig. 8).
Theory Experiment
Fig. x
Black-hodv radiation.
The area under each curve represents the sum
E^ elk, i.e. the total emissive power at that
temperature. A theoretical interpretation of this

experimental curve had now to be given.
This interpretation was based on the following
model (Fig. 9): the walls of the body are assumed to
contain systems of charged particles (electrons,
atoms, molecules) which oscillate with varying
frequencies about an equilibrium position. Now
MATTER AN 1 !) A N I I M A I T E R
whenever an electrical charge becomes displaced

inside the wall, an electro-magnetic wave is emitted,
and conversely, whenever an electro-magnetic inci-
dent wave strikes the wall, the charged system is set
into vibration.
From this model a theoretical curve of E ; against
X can be calculated (Rayleigh's law).
^
F
%
e~
F - fee
Fig. 9
Model of an oscillator. The simplest type of oscillator is made up of a
charged particle of charge c and of mass m whose acceleration along
its path is directed towards a fixed point in that path, and varies as its
distance from this fixed point. The motion of the charge is then defined
by a A sin (of.
This is shown as a dotted curve in Fig. 8, from

which it can be seen that the curve tends towards
infinity at small values of X and that, consequently.
the integral I E c/A becomes infinite also.
The classical treatment of the oscillator model

thus led not only to disagreement with experiment,
but to the absurd result that the total emissive power
was infinite.
Planck, while holding fast to the oscillator hypo-
thesis, and to the laws governing the motions of the
oscillating particles, restricted the possible number
of oscillations, and thus managed to make the theory
QUANTUM 1HI O R Y 37
agree with the experimental findings. In particular,
he made restrictions applying to high frequency
radiation (small wave lengths) and, in 1900. he
put forward the supplementary hypothesis that an
oscillator of frequency r could only emit or absorb
radiant energy by finite quantities (quanta) equal
to //v.
Such discontinuous emission of energy tends to
play down high frequency radiation. The greater
the frequency, the more energy is needed by the
oscillator to emit radiation -high frequency radiation
has thus a smaller probability of emission.
M E
l i g . 10
Energy exchanges between matter and radiation. M. matter. I . energy.
Just like in the case of matter and electricity, the

discontinuous character of energy was revealed.
Though the particles of energy, or quanta, differ in
magnitude, all are defined by the equation E hv
(li " Planck's constant 6 - 5 5 . 1 0 - 2 7 jn t h e C . G . S .
system.
On the basis of this hypothesis, the new theory

could take one of two forms:
1. All energy exchanges between matter and
radiation (absorption and emission) take place by
quanta. Radiation itself is discontinuous (Fig. 10(a)).
2. Absorption is continuous and there is a con-
tinuous accumulation of radiant energy, while
emission takes place by quanta (Fig. 10 (b)).
Since the wave theory of light had a strong experi-
mental basis, the second interpretation, which
implied that radiation was of a continuous nature,
seemed to be the more probable.
But, in 1887, Hertz had already discovered a
phenomenon, which was difficult to fit in with the
wave theory of light.
Hertz had discovered that matter, when submitted
to the action of radiation, emits electrons spon-
taneously. If we designate the radiation by its inten-
sity I and its frequency v, and the ejected electrons
by their number N and their energy E = \ mv2, we
arrive at the following results:
(a) E varies with the frequency v alone and not
with the intensity I;
(b) N varies with the intensity I.
Energy is needed to tear the electron from matter;
this energy can only be derived from the incident
radiation—matter absorbs energy. If the absorption
is continuous (hypothesis 2), the energy taken up by
the electron is proportional to the intensity of the
incident wave, and this energy, evenly distributed
along all the points of the wave, varies inversely
with the square of the distance between the point
under consideration and the source of light. Accord-
QUANTUM 1HI ORY 39
ing to this hypothesis, then, the energy E of the
electrons should have been independent of the
frequency v of the radiation and furthermore, if the
source is at a great distance, the intensity of the
incident wave cannot be great enough to tear out any
electrons (Fig. 11 (a)). In fact, experiments did not
bear out this conclusion.
In 1905, Einstein formulated hypothesis No. 1,
namely that matter absorbs radiation discontinu-
ously, and that radiation itself has a corpuscular
structure, the radiant energy transmitted being
proportional to the frequency of radiation in such a
way that
E = hv.
The corpuscle of energy was called the photon. A
return to the corpuscular structure of light had been
effected, and, in particular. Hertz's discovery (the
so-called photo-electric effect) could now be ex-
plained.
In the new hypothesis, the energy is located at a
point in the incident beam and does not fall off
according to the inverse square law (Fig. 11 (b)).
When a photon with energy h\ strikes an object,
its energy may be great enough to tear out an electron
and to impart kinetic energy to it.
If E is the energy needed for extracting an electron,
then its kinetic energy W is given by
W = hv — E
It will be seen that W is a function of only the
frequency v of the incident radiation.
Fig. II
The interpretation of the photo-electric effect (a) Wave theory. The
electron does not receive sufficient energy to be torn out. (b) Theory of
photons. The electron receives sufficient energy to be torn out.
QUANTUM 1HI ORY 41
The intensity I of the radiation can be represented
by the number of photons per unit volume. Since
these photons travel in all directions, their number
diminishes with increase of distance from the source
in such a way that, on the average, the inverse square
law is recovered.
In these circumstances, one would normally ex-
pect the number of ejected electrons to be related to
the number of photons per unit volume, i.e. to the
intensity.
In our discussion of the photo-electric effect, it
emerged that radiation was made up of corpuscles
of energy, i.e. of light quanta or photons. However,
when attempts were made to construct a model of
this new particle, new difficulties arose. The fact
that frequency played an integral part in the definition
of this new particle (E - /;v), showed that wave
theory still governed the behaviour of corpuscles in
such a way as to thwart all attempts at constructing
a model. It was left to wave mechanics to effect a
reconciliation between corpuscular and wave
theories.
We shall return to this problem later, but we must
first discuss other models of the atom investigated by
relativity and quantum theories.
4
The Bohr-Sommerfeld Atom

and the New Physics
We have seen how J. J. Thomson's and Jean

Perrin's atomic model became the basis for attempts
to explain the then known properties of atoms and
particularly their emission of light and X-rays.
While Michelson and Morley's experiment forced
physicists to revise their notions of absolute time
and space, and while the experimental study of
black-body radiation gave rise to the first physical
theory, viz. quantum theory, experimental tech-
niques to probe the atom were making unprece-
dented headway. Scientists were busy with the study
and classification of the spectrum of radiation
emitted by atoms under the action of thermal or
electric excitations, or under electron bombardment.
Early 20th century atomic physicists were tackling
a similar task to that tackled earlier by the chemists
who, following in Dalton's footsteps, had classified
the elements according to their relative weights.
We know that this arduous work had led these
chemists to the demonstration of the periodic nature
of the elements.
Physicists, in their turn, by effecting a classification
of atomic radiations, were trying to bring some order
into the complex spectral phenomena, the better to
42
BOHR-SOMMERFELD ATOM 43
formulate the empirical laws on which atomic
models could be constructed.
It soon emerged that a simple equation with only
one variable (a single parameter) could describe all
the visible lines of the hydrogen spectrum. As more
experimental evidence became available, physicists
concluded generally that every frequency found in the
spectral line of an atom could he expressed as the
difference between two term numbers (T\ and 7Y)
characteristic of the energy levels of that atom.
The physical reality behind these term numbers
had now to be investigated.
Could the planetary model based on Rutherford's
experiments, explain the existence of such discon-
tinuous energy states? In that model, the planetary
electron described a Keplerian orbit about the
positive central nucleus and, according to classical
electro-magnetic theory, it was therefore bound to
radiate energy. As a consequence, its kinetic energy
decreased, and the electron was drawn in towards
the nucleus. There was nothing discontinuous at all
about this process. Tempting though it was, the
model of the planetary electron ran counter to the
laws of electro-magnetism and to the stability of
matter.
We have seen how a search for the physical
reality behind the so-called 'spectral terms' had
become imperative. As early as 1913, quantum
theory had stood the test of experiment, and just
as Planck had quantized radiation, so Bohr now
quantized the atom.
In doing so, he had to make far-reaching assump-
tions that would solve the contradictions. Holding
to the planetary model, and, for the sake of sim-

plicity, considering only Keplerian circular orbits
with a single parameter, Bohr made the following
assumptions:
1. The atom exists only in certain stationary
states (orbits) with certain selected energy val ues t,/f,
in which the integer n is called the principal quantum
number.
2. In these stationary states, the atoms do not
emit photons.
3. The atoms emit energy (radiation) only when
they jump from one stationary state (orbit) n to
another stationary state n'.
Riemann, by rejecting Euclid's axiom, had founded
a new geometry on the cosmic scale; by quantifying
Jean Perrin's planetary model and ignoring the laws
of electro-magnetism, Bohr had created a new
physics on the atomic scale.
In Quantum Theory, the circular motion of a
mass m revolving with angular velocity co on an
orbit of radius a. is given by:
i I'h I »/? I ,,,
ma2co where co . — ^2 I
2K 2K ma
For each value of the radius a there exists a
corresponding series of values of o), such that
n 1,2, 3, etc.
Apart from these assumptions, Bohr preserved
the laws of classical mechanics: in a stationary orbit
(on which it does not emit energy even though sub-
ject to strong acceleration), the electron revolving
with velocity v is held in equilibrium by the electro-
Fig. 12
B o h r ' s model of the a t o m .
static attraction ^ between the positively charged

nucleus
Ze and the force of inertia ——.

ci
Zc 2
r tor/, whence DUO2 A (2)
Eliminating co between (I) and (2) we obtain:

4 mZe~ Z
"2 1,2
0-528.10-8 cm.
The kinetic energy of the electron is E r + ma2co2,

and its total energy E = E r + E p , E p being the
potential energy. The energy in the n'h orbit is:
2 n2 mZ2 f4
E,
ri2 h2
The equation shows that the energy is proportional
to Z2jn2, and thus inversely proportional to n, i.e.
it decreases with distance from the nucleus.
In this model the position of the electron is
determined by the parameter n:
n = 1 level K ionisation energy EK
n = 2 „ L EL
n = 3 „ M Em
In his model Bohr ignored the structure of the
atomic nucleus, but the emission of a-radiation by
naturally radio-active elements makes it probable
that it consists of hydrogen or helium nuclei.
Bohr's simple model explains a great number of
experimental data on the nature of optical spectra
and of X-rays.
During absorption, a photon of energy E - hv
penetrates into the atom; this energy may be used
for wresting an electron from the hold of the positive
nucleus. It may then jump from the level L to the
level M by absorbing the energy E L —E M . If the
energy is great enough, the electron (in level L, for
instance) can be ejected altogether, with kinetic
energy W — hv — E L . This explains the photo-
electric effect discussed earlier.
During emission the converse happens. An electron
(in level L, for instance), may drop to a vacant place
in level K and emit a photon of energy hv = E — E L .
Tf the transition takes place between deep
levels, the energy hv of the emitted photon is
large and X-rays which have high frequency,
are emitted;
if the transition takes place between outer
levels, where the force of attraction of the
nucleus is weakest, the radiation is corres-
pondingly weak, and radiation in the ultra-
violet and visible spectrum is emitted.
IR UV
Fig. 13
The spectrum of electro-magnetic waves.
Clearly Bohr's model is very attractive—so much

so that we are almost tempted to forget that accepting
it means rejecting the classical theory of electro-
magnetism.
Still, the model is incomplete, since only circular
orbits have been considered. Experiments were soon
to emphasise this drawback.
Improvements in the techniques of detecting and
recording atomic emission lines made it obvious
that certain lines classified as simple were, in fact,
of a complex nature.
To account for this fact, theoreticians had to
modify and elaborate Bohr's model to cover elliptical
orbits and also nuclear motions within the atom.
This work was started by Sommerfeld in 1916.
Quantizing elliptical orbits, he used relativity mech-
anics to explain the motion of electrons in them.

The energy of the electron became characterised by
two quantum numbers, n and /, the latter taking all
integral values between O and n — 1.
Fig. 14
Sommerfeld's model of the atom.
E<{ ^(tt-T-O)
Where E„ is the Bohr energy, and u the
so-called fine structure constant (E is a
function of the two parameters n and /).
While Bohr's model provided one K-level, one
L-level and one M-level for the spectral terms of
X-rays, Sommerfeld's model gave one K-level, two
L-levels and three M-levels.
Boh/ Sommerfeld
n = 1 Ek n = 1 /= 0 Ek
n = 2 n ? (/ = o El0
El
" \l= 1 El1
(1 = 0 Em0
n = 3 Em n = 3 /= 1 Em1
U= 2 Em2
The new theory agreed more closely with experi-
ment. Research was making great headway, and it
was soon discovered that the L-level had a fine
structure of 3 and not of 2 lines, and the M-level of 5
instead of 3.
In order to elaborate his theory, Sommerfeld
introduced the supplementary quantum number j,
whose meaning remained obscure. This complication
of the theory bode ill for the Bohr-Sommerfeld model.
The effect on atomic radiation by a magnetic field
was to deliver a final blow to that model.
2
Fig. 15
The orbital angular m o m e n t u m and its projection on the axis OZ.
The doubling of spectral lines under the action

of a magnetic field had been predicted as early as
1896, and Zeeman had been the first to observe it.
To explain the so-called 'Zeeman effect', we must
first define some of the terms used to describe it.
The orbital angular momentum of the electron is the
momentum of the electron in its orbit about the
nucleus. It acts in a direction perpendicular to the
plane defined by the momentum p — mv and the

atomic nucleus taken as the origin O (see Fig. 15).
In wave mechanics the orbital angular momentum
M is quantized i.e. M is made to correspond with a
vector / which has 21 + 1 discrete orientations in
space.
, _» h -
M and / are related by the equation M — ^— /.
Fig. 16
Quantizations of the orbital angular m o m e n t u m M.
The quant umjiumber / is proportional to the angular

momentum M.
The directions of I are referred to a fixed axis OZ
which has no physical significance. (Fig. 16)^
represents the ^projection of the momentum M on
this axis; like M, M 2 is quantized.
Thus / = 1 leads t o j h r e e possible directions of the
angular momentum M, and / = 2 to five directions,
though both levels are characterised by the same
energy En, i which is a function of only the quantum
n and /. This point is important, for we shall soon see
that if the atom is situated in a magnetic field, the
three states (/ I) and the five states (/ 2) will
have different energies with a consequent separation
of levels (Zeeman effect).
Magnetic moment. The revolutions of the electrons
about the nucleus set up electric currents which
transform the atom into a small magnet of magnetic
moment . tl. For an electron which describes a
circular orbit of radius a with velocity v the magnetic
moment .H is given by:
e
u
.K •= —av
2c
Since the orbital angular momentum of such an
electron is M max the magnetic moment . H is
clearly related to the orbital angular momentum
M in such a way that:
.H - ~ M and - M,
2 mc 2 mc
In the magnetic field X . the electron will have the

additional energy
AE =- ,\l X - '' - M X
2 mc
The effect of a magnetic field on the spectral lines

is an extremely complex phenomenon, and the
interpretation of experimental results extremely
difficult.
The theory could only account for a part of this

effect (the normal Zeeman effect), while another
effect, i.e. the anomalous Zeeman effect remained
unexplained. The fine structure of the spectra proved
much more complex than the theory had indicated.
For instance, if an atom in the state / 1 is placed
in a magnetic field X , it has three different energy
levels corresponding to the three values of VI
i.e. - 1, 0, — 1 (Fig. 16).
In a magnetic field, the energy level corresponding
to / - 1 is split into three levels, and that of / 2
into five levels. This is the normal Zeeman effect
(Fig. 17).
E„. i . - E„. ,
•It 0 X 0
Fig. 17
In this theory, already burdened with the quantum

number /, three parameters served to define the
state of the electron: //. /, /'. Even so, they proved
inadequate, and in 1925. there was a return to an
earlier model in which the electron was likened to a
sphere with evenly distributed negative charge (— c).
By Einstein's formula, E m f 2 s the radius of this
sphere was calculated to be ^ . l O - 1 3 cm. This was
the order of magnitude of nuclear dimensions.
To explain the anomalous Zeeman effect, the
picture had to be modified by the introduction of an
additional parameter. The electron was imagined to
spin on its own axis like a top, thus having an
intrinsic angular momentum, the so-called 'spin'.
Just like the angular orbital momentum, spin, too,
became quantized:
The value of s was chosen as half the quantal unit
so as to agree with experiment: .v \ J^.
The spin of the electron implied the existence of an

intrinsic magnetic moment:
tP — Mm/ (-U- ^ — Mr rot-

2 mc 2 mc
(b)
Fig. IS
Electron (a) with spin, (h) without spin.
The electron could be likened to a small spherical

magnet rotating about its own axis (Fig. 18). By
experiment, its magnetic moment was shown to be:
Ji
^ "> mr TT '
With the introduction of spin the difficulties were

resolved, and Sommerfeld's quantum number j
assumed a new significance as the vector sum of the

orbital and spin angular momenta: j = I + s.
The anomalous Zeeman effect could now be ex-
plained.
Did science at last have a true picture of the a t o m ?
A certain number of rules were still needed to com-
plete it, and to account for all, the experiments.
Fig. 19
Total angular m o m e n t u m j.
If, for instance, we imagine a system of two elec-

trons (1) and (2), we can arrange them in four ways:
two with parallel spin and two with anti-parallel spin.
Each electron has the magnetic moment |i, and
if their spins are parallel (Fig. 20a), their magnetic
moments reinforce each other, while with anti-
parallel spin (Fig. 20b) the resultant magnetic
moment is zero.
a b
Fig. 20
Different arrangements of spin for a system of two electrons.
Such a system does in fact exist: the helium atom
with its two electrons in the K-shell (/; 1). The
absence of a magnetic moment would indicate that
the two electrons have anti-parallel spin; in the
stationary state two electrons in the K-shell seem to
be precluded from having parallel spin. We may
generalise this result by stating that an electron is
characterised by the quantum numbers n, /, j and
by the quantum number jz, the projection of j on the
axis OZ (Fig. 19). The Pauli exclusion principle
states that no two electrons in the same atom may
have four quantum numbers of the same value.
This exclusion principle limits the number of
possible combinations a priori—for instance it
restricts the number of electrons on the K-level to 2.
For the L-level (n = 2) we have two electrons when
/ = O and a maximum of six electrons when / == 1.
The cloud of electrons round the nucleus had
given way to a geometrical picture involving no more
than four parameters and a number of combination
rules. The model fitted the experimental facts, but
even so physics was soon to outgrow it. Physics was
fast becoming too abstract for any models of atoms
or electrons, and Louis de Broglie and Heisenberg
with their wave and matrix mechanics were soon to
throw an entirely new light on the whole problem
of the structure of matter. The new wave mechanics
was at first non-relativistic (Schrodinger). When
Dirac introduced relativity into the new wave
mechanics, and when he presented his paper to the
Royal Society, the idea of anti-particles was born,
and with it science was given its first glimpses of the
possible structure of antimatter.
Wave Mechanics and Indeterminism
Jn the Bohr-Sommerfeld atom, quantum con

siderations had been superposed on classical mech
anics, but no real synthesis had been effected.
Relativity mechanics was concerned with the
mechanics of continuous physical magnitudes.
Quanta, which played such a predominant role in
physical phenomena, now called for an entirely new
mechanics.
This new mechanics (wave mechanics) took over
from quantum mechanics the notion that radiation
is discontinuous, and inferred that the electron itself
must have undulatory properties.
According to an hypothesis put forward by Louis
de Broglie in 1925, the quantization of the stationary
orbits in the Bohr-Sommerfeld atom reflected one
aspect of this undulatory nature:
'Whenever a material element in the most general
sense possible, has an energy W in any reference
system, there occurs in this system a periodic pheno-
menon with the frequency v defined by the quantum
relation W = hv\ (Louis de Broglie).
In classical mechanics the momentum of a material
particle is defined by the relation
p = mv
56
WAVE MECHANICS 57
In relativity mechanics this expression became
»'o v
P
Now, in wave mechanics a wave length X was

made to correspond with the momentum p of the
electron; Planck's constant, which had been instru-
mental in introducing the idea of the corpuscular
nature of radiation, now served to introduce the
undular nature of material particles, in such a way
that the wave length of the associated wave was
given by X = ^
Experimental confirmation of this revolutionary

hypothesis was not long in coming.
In 1927, Davisson and Germer in America, and
later G. P. Thomson in England, showed that when-
ever an electron beam passed through an extremely
thin metal foil, diffraction phenomena comparable
to those obtained with X-rays, could be observed.
In passing through the foil, the electrons were
deflected not like particles but like waves with a
frequency roughly a million times that of visible
light.
'As a result of his experiments, (G. P.) Thomson
came to the conclusion that each electron is associ-
ated with a wave whose wavelength is approximately
hjmv, the length of the train being at least 50 wave-
lengths and the breadth of the wave front at least
30 \ 10 - 8 cm. When the electron is moving with
uniform velocity and is in a steady state, if there is
any energy in the train of waves it must travel with

the velocity of the electron, which is small compared
with that of light'. (J. J. Thomson, Recollections and
Reflections, London 1936, p. 348).
Physicists had long wondered about the nature of
the wave associated with an electron. From 1923 to
1927, Louis de Broglie had tried to 'obtain a clear
and coherent picture of the wave-corpuscle dualism
in the framework of space and time' that conformed
to classical, causal, ideas.
At the same time other physicists, and particularly
Heisenberg, had dropped the idea of a picture in
favour of an interpretation based on probability—
hence the name 'probability wave' which is some-
times used to designate the wave associated with an
electron.
This new interpretation became generally accepted.
In 1926, Schrodinger, starting from classical
mechanics, gave a complete analytical development
of a wave mechanics that bore the same relationship
to classical mechanics as physical optics bore to
geometrical optics.
Wave mechanics, perhaps even more so than the
theory of relativity, revolutionised our way of
thinking. While relativity and quanta had forced
physicists to revise their notions of space, time and
energy, wave mechanics questioned the causality of
classical mechanics.
In this new mechanics, each particle is character-
ised by a wave function \j/. The function \|i can be
resolved into the sum of functions of the mono-
chromatic waves of frequencies vj, v2, v 3 , . . . and
of amplitudes au a2, a3 . . . , i.e.
WAVE MECHANICS 59
\ji = ax v|/j + a2 \\>2 + «3M/3 -f ...
In classical physics, the intensity of a wave is
given by the square of its amplitude; in wave mech-
anics the square of the amplitude of a particular
component, e.g. a2, gives the probability that the
particle will have the energy Ei hv2.
Monochromatic wave
(a)
lA/ave packet
-^ftf)
Ax (b)
Fig. 21
Description of a particle in wave mechanics, (a) W h e n the energy is
strictly defined ( AE — 0), the position is not ( A.r — x ) . (b) W h e n t h e
energy is not strictly defined ( AE 0), the position is s o m e w h a t m o r e
precisely defined ( AT # 0).
A monochromatic wave has a definite frequency
and wave length A, and hence the energy of the
corresponding particle is definite; its uncertainty
AE is zero. On the other hand the electron cannot
be localised in space since the wave itself occupies
the whole of an extended region of space—here the
uncertainty A_v GO (Fig. 21a).
If instead of a monochromatic wave, we take a
train of waves whose wave lengths vary between
+ AX and — AX, the particle can be located
60 MATTER ANT) ANTIMATTER
with greater accuracy and A.v may become very

small, while the uncertainty in the value of the
energy expression is increased by the fact that the
frequency is no longer strictly defined ( AE ^ 0)
(Fig. 21b).
The uncertainty relation between the co-ordinate
x of a particle and its velocity v is defined by:
A.v - Av -•= - — , where m is the mass of the rparticle.

L 7i m
Clearly, if m is very great (which happens when we
leave the atomic for the human scale), — ~ O, and

m
the uncertainty disappears.
Fig. 22
Electron in an enclosure.
This uncertainty in the values defining the position

and the velocity of a particle, is characteristic of the
transition from classical mechanics to wave mech-
anics.
Let us now consider an electron oscillating be-
tween two reflecting walls (Fig. 22). From the point
of view of wave mechanics we have a system of
stationary waves
2 7T -V
\\i — AA sin
•
—-—
WAVE MECHANICS 61
At the walls, i.e. for .v -= O and x — L. vy must be
equal to zero, and therefore
2k .
where n is an integral number.

The possible wave lengths are then k\ 2L (n - 1),
">L 2L 2L
X2 -= -J (« - 2), y (n 3) . . . \n —•
A given energy can be assigned to each value of X.

From the relations:
E - i and p J or n mr
A
we obtain:
cE i m ( h \I 2 or y
A
2L
—
\ ink/ n
and finally:
, IP- n2 jPJP
- 2 /;j2 4 1 2 8 /;;L 2 '
This set of possible values for the energy, results
from the boundary conditions at the walls, which
require that
:i
y~ nn. —
If we now consider an electron in an atom, and in

an orbit of length 2KU, which is a multiple of the
wave length associated with the electron, we will
have a system of stationary waves, just as in the
previous example of the electron in an enclosure.
From such a system of stationary waves we ob-

tain a discontinuous series of values for the energy,
but we cannot simultaneously define the position of
the electron in the system. Only the probability of
its presence in a given orbit can be predicted.
The phase of the wave seems to have a definite
physical significance since it allows us to define the
energy of the corpuscle. On the other hand, since the
amplitude is uniformly distributed in a mono-
chromatic wave, the precise position of the particle
becomes indeterminate, thus eluding all attempts
at a physical localization.
Since determinism demands the localization of a
particle of given energy, wave mechanics and the
uncertainty principle can be said to have introduced
indeterminism into physics.
At present, a great deal of research is being done
in order to lead wave mechanics along the paths
indicated by de Broglie in 1927. At that time, De
Broglie put forward his 'theory of the double
solution' which admitted the existence, behind the
statistical wave of wave mechanics, of a wave of
singularity.
Whatever happens in this respect, the new wave
mechanics were able to account for most of the
experimental results arising from work on the Bohr-
Sommerfeld atom, with the notable exception of the
anomalous Zeeman effect, which, as we have seen,
was resolved by the introduction of the notion of
electron spin.
Schrodinger's non-relativistic equation had not
taken this important factor into account, and was
therefore not applicable to systems of particles whose
WAVE MECHANICS 63
velocities were not neglible when compared with
that of light.
Dirac, in deriving a relativistic expression for the
equations of electron waves, was able to show that
the notion of spin was automatically included in his
new formulation.
In the course of his generalisation which intro-
duced relativity theory into wave mechanics, he
revolutionised the mathematical representation of the
properties of matter.
Dirac's Theory
Schrodinger's wave mechanics did not take into

account the spin of the electron. His wave equation
defined the function \|/ as a scalar quantity, i.e. a
quantity which is completely specified by its magni-
tude, as distinct from a vector quantity which also
needs its direction to be stated.
To introduce spin into wave mechanics, Pauli
proposed a wave function having two components
corresponding to the two possible orientations of the
spin. Though the new wave function represented an
advance on Schrodinger's theory, it was still based
on classical mechanics.
In Schrodinger's equation the wave function
associated with the electron was related to the
energy W of the electron. In classical mechanics, the
energy W of a particle is a function of its velocity
v or of its momentum p, i.e.:
W - +1 mv2 = ~ p2
2 m'
which always gives a positive value for W. In
relativistic mechanics these equations become:
W- m\ c4 + c-2 p~
64
(Mt. Wilson and Palomar)
C y g n u s - A , at a distance of 2 7 0 million light-years, is one

of the most powerful known radio-transmitters and
appears to be a pair of colliding galaxies. Its observed
radio output of about io 3 3 kilowatts can be calculated
on the assumption that it contains some antimatter.
(Mt. Wilson and Palomar)
T h e globular galaxy M 87, in Virgo, appears to be

either ejecting or absorbing a bright blue jet of matter.
It emits intensely powerful radio and light waves that
can be accounted for if it is assumed that the galaxy
has encountered a patch of antimatter which is now
undergoing annihilation.
DIRAC'S THEORY 65
whence
W = ± cVm I c2 + p2
which gives W either a positive or a negative value.
This point is very important for the theory of
anti-particles, and this is why, despite the difficulties
involved, we have tried to tell the reader something
about the theory of relativity.
In giving a relativistic form to Schrodinger's
equation, Dirac showed that the wave function \|/
is a magnitude with four components and that the
new equations are invariant under the Lorentz
transformation. The reader will appreciate that, as a
consequence, the new wave mechanics satisfies the
special theory of relativity. Nor was this its only
advantage: Dirac's equations in which the spin and
the magnetic moment of the electron were implicit—
relativity had introduced them there—was able to
account for all the experimental evidence, including
the anomalous Zeeman effect.
It turns out that, since the velocity of the electron
is small with respect to that of light, two compo-
nents of Dirac's wave function can be neglected, and
we are left with the two components of Pauli's
theory.
It is beyond the scope of this book to give Dirac's
famous equations which solved so many problems.
Suffice it to say, that in 1928 physics had reached
such heights of abstraction that the idea that a model
was always necessary had to be renounced alto-
gether.
On the 6th December, 1929, in his paper on the
theory of electrons and protons, Dirac stressed an
inherent difficulty in his theory—relativity had

introduced into it the possibility of electron energies
which were negative.
In the relativistic form of W, where mo ^ . repre-
sents the energy of the electron at rest, the electron
cannot take values between — m 0 c 2 and + mo c 2 .
W is positive when mo c2 > 0, and negative when
m0 c2 < 0 (see Fig. 23).
-M0C + M0C
V / / A 7 / A
V large W<0 //// W>0 v large
v-o v~o
Fig. 23
Both in classical and in relativity theory W could

be stipulated to be positive, since, because energy
had to vary continuously, there was no way of
jumping the gap between + mo c2 and — m0 c2.
In quantum theory, on the other hand (and wave
mechanics is, of course, a quantal mechanics),
energy may vary discontinuously and thus j u m p
the barrier 2m 0 c2 to pass from W > 0 to W < 0,
and vice versa.
stable Stable
Y xxx>
\
/ / W//////A W>0 V
LARGE
v large W<0 v-0 v=0
Negative energy levels
Fig. 24
Hence there is no reason in wave mechanics for

precluding solutions with negative energy.
If this new idea was not to be rejected outright, a
DIRAC'S THEORY 67
physical meaning had to be given to these solutions,
and this Dirac tried to supply. Though an electron
with negative energy was quite foreign to our
experience, Dirac argued that it could nevertheless
be studied theoretically, and in particular its be-
haviour in any given electro-magnetic field could be
predicted. The result of the calculation both in
classical mechanics and in quantum theory, was that
an electron of negative energy is deflected in a
magnetic field exactly like an electron of positive
energy would be if it had a positive electric charge
+
In his paper of December 1929 Dirac wrote,
T h u s an electron with negative energy moves in an
external field as though it carries a positive charge.
This result has led people to suspect a connection
between the negative-energy electron and the proton
or hydrogen nucleus'.
Dirac then goes on to point out that 'one cannot,
however, simply assert that a negative-energy electron
is a proton, as that would lead to the following
paradoxes: a transition of an electron from a state
of positive to one of negative energy would be
interpreted as a transition of an electron into a
proton, which would violate the law of conservation
of electric charge . . . A negative-energy electron will
have less energy the faster it moves and will have to
absorb energy in order to be brought to rest. N o
particles of this nature have ever been observed'.
[Proc. Roy. Soc. A. 126, 360-5 (1929-30)].
The Theory of 'Holes'. Negative energy could
only be explained by further revolutionary hypo-
theses. This is what the young English theoretician
did when, in his paper, he suggested a solution to

'the inherent difficulty of negative energy'.
Let us recall that the most stable states of a
particle are those which have the lowest energy.
In the case of electrons, the most stable levels,
according to Dirac's theory, are those with negative
energy and with a large velocity v. All electrons
would tend to drop to these levels with emission of
radiation. Dirac suggested the following way out of
the difficulty.
By the Pauli exclusion principle, only a single
electron can be found in each of these levels. Assum-
ing that all negative energy states are occupied,
except perhaps some corresponding to small veloc-
ities, electrons with positive energy would have little
chance of undergoing transitions to the negative
energy levels. Hence it is only electrons with positive
energy which we observed in the laboratory.
On the negative energy side we have an infinity of
electrons distributed over the most stable levels, and
electrons with negative energy have never been
observed experimentally, precisely because they are
distributed over space in infinite number and be-
cause they are in the most stable states possible.
Though this hypothesis might not satisfy physicists
accustomed to models, it has tremendous impli-
cations since, if there were indeed a small number of
states of negative energy that were unoccupied, i.e.
if lacunae occurred among the otherwise fully
occupied negative energy states, then we might hope
to be able to observe them.
Dirac investigated the properties of these lacunae
or 'holes' in the continuous distribution of negative
DIRAC'S THEORY 69
energy states, and showed that the motion of a
'hole' in an external electro-magnetic field is equiva-
lent to the motion of a positive charge +- e with
positive energy, from which it followed that 'the
holes in the distribution of electrons with positive
energy are protons'.
This theory of holes explained why it was difficult
to identify electrons of negative energy with protons
—the transition of an electron W - 0 to a state
W - 0 corresponds to the collision of an electron
with a proton in which there is a simultaneous
disappearance of the two particles, accompanied by
the emission of radiation.
In connection with this paper of Dirac's, it is
interesting to note that after having shown that the
holes behave just like positively charged particles.
Dirac identified these holes with the only particles
of positive charge -r e then known, viz. the protons.
Why did he then not postulate at once the existence
of a new particle of the same mass as the electron
and of charge - e—the anti-electron? Dirac's
conclusion seems to show that a theoretician, once
he has erected a highly abstract system, feels the
need to re-establish contact with experimental
reality as quickly as possible. The positive charge
t e having crept into his very elegant theory,
Dirac immediately identified it with the proton.
But he was quick to notice the great discrepancy
between the mass of the proton and that of the
electron.
On the 29th May, 1931, in a second paper, Dirac
stated that experimental work had made it clear that
the particle corresponding to the hole must neces-
sarily have the same mass as the electron. Quoting

the work of Weyl and Oppenheimer who had sug-
gested that the hole in the negative energy states must
be considered as a new type of particle, Dirac
proposed calling this particle the anti-electron. He
pointed out that the difficulty of detecting the new
particles was due to their strong tendency to recom-
bine with ordinary negative electrons.
The annihilation of matter, and the materialisation
of energy were thus foreseen as early as 1931, in a
paper which even suggested that protons might
also have their own negative states, normally occu-
pied, except for a small number of unoccupied
states which would appear as anti-protons.
Materialisation and annihilation.
Since then the theory has undergone many

modifications, and become even more abstract.
Even so, the sudden development of atomic energy
and the associated problem of anti-particles have
recently revived interest in it.
Though the theory of holes may have lost its
practical interest for physicists who now work with
more up-to-date mathematical tools, it has retained
much of its explanatory value, since it allows us to
DIRAC'S THEORY 71
form a concrete picture of very abstract processes.
Imagine a flat-bottomed box containing a hundred
small billiard balls distributed evenly over the
bottom, and so close together that in effect they
form a continuous layer covering the bottom of the
box. Individual balls cannot be distinguished or
observed.
Now if the same box contained one hundred and
fifty balls, fifty of these would not fit into the bottom
layer and would lie above the others. The hundred
balls covering the entire bottom of the box can be
likened to electrons with negative energy W < m 0 c 2 ;
the fifty others behave like ordinary negative elec-
trons with positive energy W > /;z0 c- - these alone
can be observed and their movements and inter-
actions studied.
Let us now imagine that an external force manages
to extract one of the hundred balls of the bottom
layer. This could be done, for instance, by a small
suction pump or by striking a ball in some suitable
way. The ejected ball would now leave an observable
gap as it rose to the top. The ball would then repre-
sent the positive energies of the hole theory. The
gap it has produced in the bottom layer (representing
the negative energies) can also be observed. It can
be likened to a particle of positive energy since it
corresponds to the absence of a particle of negative
energy, and it will have a positive charge since it
corresponds to the absence of a negative charge.
This 'hole' in the layer of negative electrons with
negative energy will then behave like a positive
electron with positive energy. Side by side with the
classical electron we therefore have the possibility
12 MATTI R A N D ANT1MATTKR
of the existence of an anti-electron—the positive

electron or positron.
The hole will not remain empty for long, since one
of the fifty-one balls on the higher level (positive
energies) will tend to fall into it. thus closing the gap
in the bottom layer. In the analogy, two particles
will then have disappeared—the electron and the
positron.
This picture may have served to illustrate the
disappearance of matter which occurs when an
electron and an anti-electron annihilate each other.
Their total energy—including the energy 2m() c2
corresponding to their mass—must be converted
into photons.
The converse phenomenon the creation of an
electron-anti-electron pair—requires an energy
higher than 2m Q C2. From the values of /»() and C,
the photon necessary to provide this energy can be
calculated to have an energy higher than one million
electron volts.
At this point, it might be useful to sum up the
characteristics of the electron and of the hypo-
thetical anti-electron.
Electron e~ Anti-electron e+
Charge - 1- 6.10 - 1 9 C : 1-6.10-1^ C
Mass 0-91.10-27 g 0-91.10-27 g
Spin
Magnetic moment — eli!4 nmc -4- elij4 nmc
The positive electron was not to remain a hypo-
thetical particle for long. Experiment was soon to
confirm the existence of this anti-particle.
11
E x p e r i m e n t a l Physics at the
Beginning of the T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y :
T h e Positive Electron
So far. we have tried to retrace the steps taken by

modern physical theory in its attempts to improve on
the classical explanation of atomic phenomena. If
we have devoted so much space to theory, it is
because the dawn of the twentieth century was
marked by an unparalleled wealth of fruitful hypo-
theses. Relativity, quantum theory, and wave mech-
anics were leading physics towards new horizons,
and had opened up to mankind an unlimited source
of energy: atomic power. The theoretical develop-
ments had a direct bearing on the problem of anti-
particles, and. therefore, we could not avoid dis-
cussing them in some detail. But now we must leave
theory for the research laboratory in which an
unceasing study of the properties of matter, and
particularly those of the atomic nucleus, was being
made.
Little was known about the nucleus, apart from
Prout's hypothesis (1815), in which the hydrogen
nucleus was the constituent element of all other
nuclei. Chemists believed that the number of elec-
trons in an atom might well be equal to half the
atomic weight, and they had managed to classify the
73
74 MATTER AND ANTIMATTER
elements, first in order of atomic weight, and later

according to their electronic structure.
Pierre and Marie Curie's discovery of natural
radio-activity led to an entirely new approach. The
study of the radio-active properties of the heavy
elements was to provide a great deal of important
data on the structure and organisation of the nucleus.
The discovery of isotopes, i.e. atoms of the same
element having different physical but identical
chemical properties, had raised problems which
were to occupy physicists for the next twenty years
to come.
Doubtless, the most important advance in attempts
to, probe the nucleus was Rutherford's discovery
(1919) that nitrogen could be transformed into
oxygen, with the liberation of hydrogen nuclei or
protons. These particles with an equal but opposite
charge to that of the electron, could only have
originated from the nitrogen nuclei which, under
the bombardment of particles from a naturally
radio-active body, broke down to liberate one of
their constituents:
a-particle + nitrogen -»- oxygen + proton
He* + Ni '74 0'87 + H[
In 1920, protons and electrons still appeared to

be the sole constituents of matter. At that time,
Rutherford's experiments were being repeated in a
great many laboratories and a new chemistry was
born: nuclear chemistry.
Boron, fluorine, sodium and aluminium were all
bombarded with a-particles, and these experiments
i
EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS 75
were soon to lead to the discovery of a new con-
stituent of matter, the neutron (Chadwick, 1932),
and to the discovery of a new type of radio-activity,
'artificial' radio-activity (Irene and Frederic Joliot-
Curie, 1934).
We shall have to return to these two great dis-
coveries later, but meanwhile we shall continue our
tour of the laboratories, and look at the techniques
for studying radio-activity.
Rays of charged particles may be studied by ob-
serving the ionisation phenomena they produce.
This can be done in three ways:
1. Measuring the intensity of radiation (electro-
scope).
2. Observing the trajectory of a charged particle
(Wilson cloud-chamber).
3. Counting the charged particles (scintillation
counter and Geiger-Miiller counter).
1. Measurements of the intensity of radiation
(electroscope). The electroscope is a box containing
a very thin gold leaf attached at one end to a fixed
metal rod. If an electric charge is brought into con-
tact with the rod, the gold leaf is deflected from the
rod (by repulsion between like charges).
When a radio-active substance is placed inside the
box, its radiation will ionise the air in the box and the
charge on the rod will leak into the ionised air.
The gold leaf will then return to its original position.
The speed with which the foil collapses is a
measure of the ionisation in the chamber.
2. Observation of the trajectory of a charged
particle (Wilson cloud-chamber). The Wilson cloud-
chamber is a cylinder containing air saturated with
water vapour. A piston in the chamber is moved so

as to cause the air suddenly to expand to 4/3 its
volume. This produces supersaturation. The charged
particles ionise the air. each giving rise to thousands
of ions. Each ion becomes a nucleus on which a drop
of water condenses, and the droplets are visible as
they reflect light from a beam sent in through the
side of the chamber. The line of droplets produced
by a particle in its path through the chamber can be
photographed from above.
Fig. 26
Collision between ;i fasi-moving electron and another electron (alter a
photograph taken in a Wilson cloud-chamber).
By placing the chamber in a magnetic field the

energy and charge of a particular particle can be
evaluated from the radius of its trajectory.
3. Count of charged particles, (a) Scintillation-
counter. When a heavy charged particle, such as an
a-particle or proton, strikes a fluorescent screen, the
resulting scintillations can be observed through a
magnifying glass.
This method is no longer in use since it is both
awkward and inaccurate, and we only mention it
because it was due to a similar arrangement that
Rutherford was able to observe the transformation
of nitrogen into oxygen with the emission of a
proton.
(b) Geiger-M tiller counter. This is an ionisation
chamber consisting essentially of an aluminium
cylinder of thickness 0-1 mm. (the negative electrode)
and a thin conducting wire (the positive electrode),
stretched axially inside the cylinder and carefully
insulated from it; this wire is kept at a potential
of about 1,000 V.
When an ionised particle, i.e. a charged particle,
passes through the counter, it produces ion-electron
pairs (c~; ion + ) which are accelerated by the electric
field in the counter so that they repeatedly ionise the
gas inside.
In this way, passages of the particles produce
pulses in the counting wire which are led to a suitable
amplifier and can be counted by a mechanical
counter.
The positive electron. Round about 1930, scientists
were studying a-, p- and y-radiation and particularly
their absorption by various substances. Certain
anomalies during the absorption of the y-rays
emitted by thorium drew attention to work being
done on cosmic rays.
Cosmic rays were discovered in 1910, when it was
observed that a gold leaf electroscope is discharged
at altitudes of between 5,000 and 9.000 m. This
1
discharge showed that cosmic radiation was also

made up of charged particles of great penetrative
power.
In 1929, the Russian physicist Skobelzyn, studying
cosmic radiation by means of the Wilson cloud-
chamber, was able to show that cosmic rays had an
energy of up to 15 million eV. In 1932, Anderson and
Millikan, placing a Wilson cloud-chamber in a
magnetic field, observed that the charged particles
were being deflected. The direction and radius of
their trajectory led to a determination of the sign of
the charge and the mass of the particle.
From photographs of these trajectories, Anderson
was led to suspect the existence of positively charged
particles with a mass that was small compared to the
mass of the proton. Other experiments were to
confirm his findings, and the newly discovered
positive particles were named positrons. When
sufficient data had been accumulated, it became
clear that positrons were, in fact, positive electrons,
i.e. the anti-electrons of Dirac's theory. As so often
happens in science, the new discovery was soon to
be confirmed in other branches of physics.
We have mentioned the fact that the anomalous
absorption of y-radiation was occupying the atten-
tion of physicists during 1930-1931. What was the
nature of this anomalous absorption? y-radiation
consists of photons, i.e. particles having no mass,
but whose energy is still governed by the relation
E = hv. Any study of y-radiation is thus the study
of the interaction between photons and matter.
Now, matter is largely made up of electrons, and it
is pertinent to investigate the interaction between
photons and electrons. Two effects which were also
being studied at that time, the photo-electric effect
and the Compton effect, must first be mentioned.
W = EY — E K
Fig. 27
Photo-electric effect.
1. Photo-electric effect. In this, the photon gives

up all its energy to the electron, which then acquires
a kinetic energy corresponding to the difference
between the energy of the photon and the energy
which held it in the atom from which it was ejected.
2. Compton effect. Here, the photon gives up only
part of its energy to the electron, and continues to
exist with change of frequency. As in the photo-
electric effect, an electron is expelled from an atom.
Level K
E „ W - (By — E'y) — Ex
Fig. 28
C o m p t o n effect.
From the theory of these effects, physicists could

predict a decrease in the intensity of a beam of
y-rays when it passed through a plate made, for
instance, of lead, in such a way that:
AI - IN dx (aph + ac);
where 1 incident intensity;
N number of atoms per unit volume of
the absorbing material;
dx — thickness of the absorbing material;
a p h - absorption by photo-electric effect;
a, absorption by Compton effect.
When incident radiation has an energy greater
than 1 MeV, the absorption (or decrease in intensity
AI is greater than the theory predicts. The explan-
ation is as follows:
Eig. 29
Materialisation of a p h o t o n .
The paths of the electrons are
curved under the action of a
magnetic field. The path of the
photon is not visible.
By means of cloud-tracks, I. and F. Joliot-Cuyie

managed to show that when a photon passes through
a plate, it may lead to the emission of positive
electrons. They obtained a photograph on which a
negative and a positive electron could be seen to
have originated from the same point (Fig. 29).
The materialisation of energy had been demon-
strated—photons with sufficient energy can disappear'
to create two electrons of opposite sign and charge.
This explains why the absorption of high energy
y-radiation is greater than the theory predicted—
absorption due to the formation of a pair of particles
(a,,) has to be added to the expression for AI above.
The new equation is:
AI -- IN C/.Y (CTph f O, -r a p )
Let us now look at the interpretation (within the

scope of Dirac's theory) of this materialisation of
energy—or, to put it more precisely, of this creation
of the e + , e~ pair.
In Fig. 30, the energy corresponding to the mass
m 0 of an electron at rest is, according to Einstein's
relation, mQ c2 ••- 510 KeV.
To create two electrons, therefore, a minimum of
energy 2»i 0 c2 =-- 102 MeV is needed. If the energy
of the photon is greater than 102 MeV, it can thus
give rise to an e + , e— pair, the extra energy being
converted into the kinetic energy of the two electrons
W,. + W r .
Fig. 30
The creation of an <,+, e~ pair according to the Dirac theory.
The theory of holes has shown how an electron

can jump from a negative energy level A to a positive
energy level B (Fig. 30). In this case a photon of
energy hv projects the negative electron across the
barrier 2m 0 c 2 . In the course of this process, the
photon disappears to give rise to an electron and
its hole, i.e. two corpuscles.
In his theory, Dirac had also foreseen the annihi-
lation of positive electrons by collision with negative
electrons which are so abundant in matter. The
lifetime of an anti-electron was thought to depend
on the electron density of the absorbent material;
it was believed to be of the order of 3.10 - 7 sec. in a
medium such as air at atmospheric pressure. This
theoretical value was of an order of magnitude in
agreement with experiment; high-velocity positrons
—e.g. those found in cosmic rays—could thus pass
through the Wilson cloud-chamber without being
annihilated.
Since its velocity decreases with successive col-
lisions, a positive electron can become destroyed by
a negative electron and give rise to two photons of
total energy 510 KeV or to a single photon of energy
1-02 MeV, whenever an atomic nucleus is present
to absorb the liberated momentum.
In the same year that the materialisation of
energy was demonstrated, the dematerialisation of
matter was also shown experimentally (I. and F.
Joliot-Curie and J. Thibaud, 1933).
The energy of the photons liberated during the
annihilation of an e+, e~ pair in a lead or aluminium
screen, was found to be of the order of 510 KeV, and
the number of photons per positive electron was of
the order of 1-6-3. This was the first experimental
confirmation of Einstein's equation E = mc2. The
mutual transformation of matter and energy had been
proved experimentally. To the mass m of a particle,
there corresponds the energy E ^ mc2, where c is
the velocity of light.
Whenever a physical process causes the disappear-
ance of mass, an enormous quantity of energy is
liberated, A gram of matter represents an energy of
8-98.10 20 ergs or 2-1.10 13 cal. This energy is created
each time one gram of matter is destroyed. Energy
is produced whenever an anti-electron (i.e. a positive
electron) is annihilated, and similarly energy will also
be liberated by the destruction of any of the other
anti-particles.
At the Solvay Congress, held in Brussels at the end
of October, 1933, Dirac could legitimately claim
that the recent discovery of the positive electron and
all the experimental results so far obtained were
consistent with his earlier theory about the negative
energy levels of the electron.
But at the same Congress other problems were
raised which must now occupy our attention,
namely:
1. The discovery of a new constituent of the
atomic nucleus, the neutron,
2. The interpretation of radio-activity and the
neutrino hypothesis,
3. The construction of proton accelerators.
Was the neutron which, together with the proton,
made up the atomic nucleus, an elementary particle
obeying Dirac's equations? Were there anti-protons
and anti-neutrons in addition to anti-electrons?
84 MATTER AND ANTIMATTER
Advances in the construction of accelerators

eventually made it possible to give an affirmative
answer to these questions, but these developments
did not take place until 1955.
8
The Neutron, Artificial Radio-Activity,

the Neutrino and Mesons
The work on cosmic radiation and the abnormal

absorption of high-energy y-particles, went hand in
hand with research on the atomic nucleus which,
since the time of Rutherford's experiments, was
increasingly absorbing the energy of physicists. In
1930, all that was known about the nucleus was that
it gave rise to natural radio-active rays, and that
some of these rays were electrons. It was therefore
thought that the atomic nucleus was made up of
electrons as well as of protons. The helium nucleus,
for example, was said to consist of 4 protons and 2
electrons, i.e. 6 elementary particles of spin I.
Wave mechanics could not account for the
presence of these electrons in the atomic nucleus,
since the dimensions of the electrons exceeded those
of the nucleus.
The neutron. Rutherford's work was followed up
by Bothe and Becker in Germany. By bombarding
light elements (such as boron and beryllium) with
a-rays emitted by polonium, they discovered a new
type of nuclear transformation.
In this case, it was not a proton which was emitted
from the nucleus, but some radiation of great
85
penetrative power and of very weak intensity. Bothe

and Becker concluded that this radiation was electro-
magnetic.
Two years later, in 1932, the experiments were
repeated by Chadwick in England, and by I. and F.
Joliot-Curie in France. They found that this new
radiation could knock out hydrogen nuclei in its
path. Chadwick was therefore able to conclude
that the radiation responsible for projecting the
protons must have consisted of neutral particles
with a mass close to that of the proton. These par-
ticles were called neutrons.
Because it has no charge, the neutron's passage
through matter cannot be detected, unless it happens
to lose some of its energy in collision with a nearby
atomic nucleus. Such collisions are very rare, and
the neutron can in fact pass through thick layers of
matter.
By the end of 1932, neutrons had taken the place
of electrons in the picture of the structure of the
nucleus. The helium nucleus was now thought to
consist of 4, instead of 6, particles—2 protons and 2
neutrons. A great many difficulties had been resolved,
and the existence of isotopes could at last be ex-
plained.
Two isotopic nuclei are two nuclei with the same
number of protons Z, but with a different number
of neutrons A—Z (where A is the atomic weight).
The electron shells in the two isotopes are identical
since they are still made up of Z electrons revolving
about the nucleus of positive charge Ze. As a result,
the two isotopes have identical chemical properties.
Since, however, the nuclei do not have the same
THE NEUTRON 87
number of neutrons, they may have different radio-
active properties.
Chemical elements could now be represented by
their chemical symbols with a subscript giving the
charge Z and a superscript giving the total number
of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. For instance,
C135 and Q37 are the 2 stable isotopes of chlorine,
Duterium
Hydrogen (Heavy hydrogen)
I IA 0 D|0
Ordinary water Heavy water
Fig. 31
E x a m p l e s of isotopes.
Though the neutron helped to explain a great

many phenomena, the interpretation of its emission
and the determination of its exact mass presented
new problems. Experimental work was therefore
directed to a detailed study of the transmutations
produced by a-particles.
In the course of this work, L and F. Joliot-Curie
observed that certain light elements—fluorine, alum-
inium and sodium—emitted positive and negative
electrons when bombarded with a-rays from pluto-
nium. Thus they had shown that a neutron and a

positive electron (transmutation electron) could be
emitted in place of a proton (whose mass is 1 -00795).
Was the anti-electron a constituent of the atomic
nucleus, just like the electron?
One of the first consequences of these experiments
was the determination of the mass of the neutron.
The Curies obtained the value
1-00890 < VI „ <: 1-0100.
The current value is M„ = 1-00898. The mass of
the neutron is therefore slightly greater than that of
the proton.
The second consequence of these experiments was
the discovery of artificial radio-activity, wjiich was to
earn the Joliot-Curies the Nobel Prize in 1935.
Artificial radio-activity. The emission of positive
electrons by F, A l , Na continues even after the
bombardment with a-particles has stopped. The
emitted rays are of the same nature as the (3-rays
emitted by radio-active elements.
Bombardment with a-particles produces unstable
elements not normally found in nature, which then
disintegrate in the course of time to produce stable
elements.
We can now write down the reactions set off by
a-particles or He1* nuclei. For instance, the bombard-
ment of aluminium sets off the following reaction:
A l 2137 He 42 ~> P15
30
4- o -
The phosphorus thus formed is unstable:
P.30 - Si.1!' + <- -
15 i4
THE NEUTRON 89
Its radio-active half-life is of the order of a few
minutes.
By 1932, matter was thus thought to have 3
elementary constituents: the electron, the proton,
and the neutron, all of spin and hence in agreement
with Dirac's theory. While theory was satisfied with
this new picture of the nucleus, experiment was not.
Physicists could not explain how P-rays, i.e. the
electrons, could have left the nucleus of which they
had not originally been a part.
Once again the theoreticians had to be called in.
They put forward the idea that neutrons and protons
were 2 different states of one and the same particle,
the nucleon. The nucleon could undergo two transi-
tions:
neutron proton + negative electron
proton -> neutron -f positive electron
Resultant Resultant
spin : / spin: 0
Fig. 32
Model of the neutron.
While the existence of artificial radio-activity

could now be explained, there still remained one
great theoretical difficulty: since a neutron with spin
\ is made up of 2 particles each of spin the resultant
spin could only be either 0 or 1, and not as in fact
it was (see Fig. 32).
There was another, experimental, difficulty. The

principle of the conservation of energy is not ob-
served in the course of [3-decay. The electron emitted
by the nucleus does not carry all the lost energy.
For instance, when a nucleus of radio-phosphorus
P32 (an unstable isotope of P^1) disintegrates, the re-
sulting nucleus is a nucleus of stable sulphur S^2.
The difference of energy between P-52 and Sj32 is about
1-7 MeV, which ought to be the energy of the decay
electron. Now this is not the case—the electrons
emitted by radio-phosphorus have a continuous
energy distribution ranging between 0 and 1- 7 MeV.
The neutrino. Since previous hypotheses of the
existence of new particles had proved so fruitful,
physicists, in order to account for the above results,
postulated the existence of a particle of charge
zero and of much smaller mass than the electron: the
neutrino.
Experimental workers, with considerable tech-
nological efforts and using a great deal of ingenuity,
have actually managed to demonstrate the existence
of this new, neutral, particle. This work continues,
and scientists are at present investigating if—in
accordance with Dirac's theory—an anti-neutrino
exists by the side of the neutrino.
We must now distinguish between the essential
characteristics of elementary particles and their
anti-particles.
According to Dirac's theory, both particles and
anti-particles have a positive kinetic energy, and can
therefore not be distinguished by their mass. There
THE NEUTRON 91
are, however, two other distinguishing character-
istics: charge and magnetic moment.
In the case of a charged particle (proton or elec-
tron) the problem is simple: charge and spin turn
the particle into a small magnet with a characteristic
magnetic moment; the anti-particle will then be of
opposite charge and have a magnetic moment in the
opposite sense to that of the particle.
The proton has the charge + e, and the magnetic
moment:
eh
and the anti-proton the charge — e and the magnetic

moment:
eh
— 2- 79 -x-SlL—.
4 7iM;,c
The problem is more difficult for the case of neutral
particles, since it is difficult to see how a particle
without charge can have a magnetic moment. This
being the case, it seems impossible to distinguish
between neutral anti-particles and neutral particles.
But, in fact, a particle could be electrically neutral
and still carry positive and negative charges cancel-
ling each other. A magnetic moment could then
result from the motion of these charges, and particles
could therefore be distinguished from anti-particles
by the sign of their magnetic moments.
By experiment, the magnetic moment of the
neutron was shown to be:
e
i ni h
The magnetic moment, which has a direction

parallel to the spin, has in the case of the neutron, a
sense opposite to the spin.
The neutrino has the magnetic moment p ~ 0.
If p. = 0, the anti-neutrino and the neutrino are
identical, but if p ^ 0 they could be distinguished.
The mass of the neutrino is very small compared
to that of an electron (mo), and may be as small as
10-6
All these factors make the neutrino very difficult
to detect. However, the introduction of a particle of
spin | into the theory of (3-decay means that the laws
of the conservation of spin and energy are obeyed.
-> p + e~ + v
p n + e+ -f v
The presence of the anti-neutrino (v) lends greater
symmetry to the theory of p radiation:
n 1 v p -f e~
p i- v •> n + e+
The emission of a neutrino «thus corresponds to the
absorption of an anti-neutrino, and vice versa.
In this way, a (3-transition transforming the nucleus
(A, Z) into the nucleus (A, Z + 1), can be explained
as the absorption by a neutron of the original
nucleus of a neutrino with its consequent trans-
formation into a proton and emission of a negative
electron. Considered in this way, the neutrons and
protons in the nucleus can absorb and emit light
particles (electron-neutrino) and are thus mutually
transformable.
This touches upon a question which was claiming
THE NEUTRON 93
the attention of theoreticians in 1935. How can we
explain the cohesion between protons and neutrons
within the confined nuclear space where the electro-
static repulsion between, for instance, 2 protons
must be considerable? Since Coulombian forces
could not explain their cohesion, bonds of an en-
tirely new nature had to be introduced. Physicists
looked at the example of the hydrogen molecule.
(a) (b)
Fig. 33
Hydrogen molecule, (a) Neutral, and (b) Ionised.
Now, in the hydrogen molecule, H 2 (Fig. 33), the

spins of the 2 electrons are anti-parallel. The system
is stable, and wave mechanics could, in fact, predict
this stability from the wave functions v^ and i|/2
of the 2 electrons.
Once an electron is torn from this molecule, the
molecule becomes a positive ion, and a single
electron must preserve the stability of the system.
The electron is then said to oscillate between the 2
protons, thus holding them together despite their
electrostatic repulsion.
By analogy, this kind of exchange was thought to
be responsible for the cohesion of nucleons within a
nucleus, and the neutrino and the electron were
thought to be the particles involved in the exchange.

The nuclear radius predicted by this hypothesis was
much larger than the experimentally measured
radius; and hence an entirely new particle, the
meson, was postulated.
Since then, mesons have assumed an ever-growing
importance in atomic physics, and must certainly be
considered as playing a paramount role within the
nucleus. We shall therefore have to look at them
more closely.
Mesons. In 1935, the Japanese physicist Yukawa
suggested that an exchange of mesons took place
between the nucleons of the nucleus and that it was
responsible for the stability of atomic nuclei. He
predicted that the mesons would have a mass 200
times that of the electron, and that their lifetime was
of the order of a millionth of a second (10~6 sec.).
In May 1937, experiments confirmed the existence
of this hypothetical particle. The study of cosmic
rays, which had already confirmed the existence of
Dirac's positive electron, now revealed the existence
of Yukawa's meson. The mass of the first meson to
be identified was roughly 210 times the mass of the
electron (210 m e )—theory had once again been
corroborated. Cloud-chamber photographs, further-
more, showed that a meson could disintegrate with
the appearance of an electron. This type of meson,
called a n-meson, exists in two states )j + and of
charges + e and — e and of spin 4. Hence the
symmetry between particle and anti-particle held
good in this field as well.
The energy of the electrons emitted during the
disintegration of a p-meson is not always the same.
THE NEUTRON 95
This was thought to result from the fact that the
H-meson breaks up into three particles:
e+ + v + v
e~ + v + v
The mean life of a |a-meson is 2-15.10 - 6 sec. The
meson itself results from the disintegration of
another type of meson (7i-meson) which, though
discovered later than the |i-meson, must be con-
sidered to be the original Yukawa particle.
The n meson, of mass 275 me exists in 3 states :7t+,
n~, and (neutral meson). Perfect symmetry holds
between n + and n~, both of which have a mean life
of 2-5.10 - 8 sec. TT° has a somewhat smaller mass
(265 m e ) and a very much smaller half-life (10~ 15
sec.). It appears that n mesons have spin 0, which
differentiates them from the class of particles obeying
Dirac's equation.
It is the n-mesons which are responsible for the
cohesive forces within the nucleus; according to the
following scheme:
1) p - N + 7i+ 2) N ^ P + n -
3) p ^ p + jto 4) N p , P + jc°
When the work on mesons was first begun, cos-
mic radiation was the sole known source of these
new particles. They were generally studied by means
of the Wilson cloud-chamber. However, Yukawa's
theory had predicted that mesons could arise from
collisions between two high velocity nucleons, in the
following scheme:
• V) + -V 2 ^ - v ; + .V 2 + 7i
Developments in accelerator techniques and in

methods of observation were to confirm this theory
and to provide new sources of mesons together with
new methods of studying them.
Heavy mesons or hyperons were discovered, and
in due course these particles were to provide the
energy needed for the creation of anti-nucleons.
9
Particle A c c e l e r a t o r s
a n d H i g h - E n e r g y Physics
As far back as 1933, the Solvay Congress had

already discussed 'the disintegration of elements by
accelerated protons'. J. D. Cockcroft pointed out
that, according to wave mechanics, very high
energies were not really essential for penetrating
the nucleus, and added that the success of artificial
nuclear disintegration generally depended on the
production of a current of fast-moving particles.
Different methods had been used for this purpose
but considerable technical difficulties had been met
in all of them.
Thus, from the time that Dirac had mooted the
idea of antiparticles, physicists had been looking
for ways and means of accelerating the then known
particles in order to produce projectiles for splitting
the nucleus.
Cockcroft and Walton, by accelerating protons
in an electrostatic field of some hundred thousand
volts, had, in fact, managed to split the lithium
nucleus into two a-particles:
Li] + H} ^ 2 He?
A new branch of physics was therefore born at

the 1933 Congress, when Cockcroft and Walton
M.A.A. D 97
presented their results in the presence of Rutherford,

the father of nuclear transformations, and Lawrence,
the builder of the first cyclotron.
Lawrence's cyclotron at Berkeley, California, was
the first of a series of powerful accelerators. With
them, physics was to make tremendous strides, and
open up the field of nuclear reactions in the same
revolutionary way that 19th century chemists had
opened up the field of chemical reactions. This
progress is continuing to this day, and modern
technical knowledge is being applied to the con-
struction of ever-more powerful accelerators.
Since particle-accelerators made possible the pro-
duction of mesons in 1947, of anti-protons in 1955,
and of anti-neutrons in 1956, we shall now give a
brief sketch of the most important of them.
General Principles. Whenever a charged particle
is placed in an electric field, it becomes accelerated.
Charged particles (ions) are produced in the follow-
ing ways:
Protons, by the ionisation of hydrogen.
Deuterons, by the ionisation of heavy hydrogen.
a -particles, by the ionisation of helium.
All accelerators have, first of all, a source of ions—
i.e., a chamber in which the gas (hydrogen or helium)
is reduced to very low pressures (10 - 3 to 10 - 4 cm.
of mercury) and in which it is ionised. The resulting
ions are then forced into the accelerator proper,
where the pressure is much lower still (10~6 to
10~7 cm. of mercury). Finally, the accelerated
particles are expelled to give a beam whose intensity
can be calculated with a high degree of accuracy.
The Electrostatic Accelerator. Van de G r a a f s
PARTICLE ACCELERATORS 99
electrostatic accelerator produces a beam of par-
ticles (protons or deuterons) of continuous intensity
and of a definite amount of energy, which can be
calculated within an error of 1/10,000.
This type of linear accelerator is based on a very
simple principle. When a particle of charge Ze travels
between two electrodes whose potential difference
is V volts, it is given the energy ZeV electron-volts.
Cockcroft and Walton's accelerator in the Cavendish
Laboratory at Cambridge was based on this idea.
Here, protons were accelerated by applying poten-
tials of about 100 kV to a set of successive electrodes.
In the Van de Graaf accelerator, an endless belt
of insulating material is sprayed with positive ions
from a D.C. generator. The charge is collected by a
hollow sphere acting as an electrode.
Thus a high potential difference, V, is set up
between the electrode and the earth, and this poten-
tial is limited only by the nature of the insulating
material, and by the dimensions of the apparatus.
The Cyclotron. In Lawrence's cyclotron the ions
are accelerated by the application of numerous
successive potentials.
The ions move in a circular orbit due to the
lateral force of a magnetic field. Acceleration is
effected between two flat, semi-circular containers,
the 'dees' (i.e., D-shapes), to which a high frequency
A.C. potential is applied. The dees are placed in
a strong magnetic field and, at each half-period, the
ions are pulled into one of the containers. The
frequency of the applied alternating field is chosen
so that the particles, after describing one semi-
circle, enter into the opposite field between the dees,
and are thus accelerated further. This process is

repeated a few hundred times, so that very fast-
moving ions are produced, although the voltages
involved are relatively small.
The cyclotron produces a beam of particles
(protons, deuterons and a-particles) of very great
kinetic energy (in the case of deuterons up to 25
MeV).
In a magnetic field H, perpendicular to v, a
particle of mass M, of charge q =- Ze, and of velocity
v describes a circular trajectory of radius p.
The radius is calculated by putting that, on this
trajectory, the Lorentz and centrifugal forces are in
equilibrium.
t/vH Mv 2 , Vlv f/H ,p Mr
r,1 - = - ;F = whence =-- 1 — a n d - -• —n
c ' p p c V qH
Kig. 34
The cyclotron. O. source of ions. (I) and (2), dees. B, beam of accelerated
particles. H.F., high frequency. The magnetic field is perpendicular to
the plane of the figure.
The period of rotation t of the charged particles
in the magnetic field is 2np/v = i.e. the period
is independent of the velocity provided only that v

is small compared with c, i.e. provided relativity
effects can be neglected. The duration of one revolu-
tion can therefore be so adjusted as to be equal to the
period of the high frequency potential.
Putting v - co, we then obtain:
MC2 = ^CO = V'/C
where M is the relativistic mass
We know that Mc 2 is the total energy of the particle

Mc 2 = Wkin + M0c2
where Wkin is the kinetic energy of the particle, and
MQC2 the equivalent energy of the inertial mass.
The maximum kinetic energy for a given particle
depends on the radius of the orbit in the magnetic
field, and on either the frequency of the oscillator,
or the intensity of the field.
Lawrence's first cyclotron had the following
characteristics:
Diameter of the electrodes: 50 c m ;
Diameter of the electromagnet: 114 c m ;
Deuteron beam of 3-6 M^V.
The magnetic field H of the cyclotron is usually
between 5,000 and 15,000 gauss. Once H is fixed,
the energy of the particle depends on its charge and

on the radius p of its maximum orbit. With H --•
10,000 gauss and p = 50 cm, deuterons of 6 MeV
and protons of 12 MeV are produced. With H
13.000 gauss and p = 250 cm, the particles will have
the respective energies of 238 M^V and 415 MeV.
With such energies the velocity would approach that
of light, and the period of rotation would no longer
be independent of the velocity. Thus an upper limit
is set to the possible particle energies produced in
cyclotrons.
The Synchro-cyclotron. The orbital radius of an
accelerated particle in the cyclotron is given by
and the time of one revolution by

_ 2np _ 27TMQY
T~ " ^H '
When v is small compared with c (the velocity
of light) we have y 1j 1 1 and, by put-
ting t = const, we can obtain a constant f r e q u e n c y / ,

such that
/H
f ' 2TcM0y"
Once the velocity of light is approached, the
parameter y becomes a function of the velocity of the
particle, i.e. of the radius p of the trajectory; y(p)
becomes greater than unity and, since t is no longer
constant, a phase lag occurs between the arrival
of the particle in the dees and the time of maximum
voltage.
When this lag corresponds to 9 0 \ the voltage is
zero and the particle is not accelerated between the
dees; it moves in an orbit of fixed radius.
In the synchro-cyclotron, this decrease in angular
velocity is compensated by a corresponding decrease
in the frequency applied to the dees. This frequency
modulation may lead to very high energies and
produce a beam of particles whose intensity is no
longer constant. The resulting pulses are in the
micro-ampere range.
The Berkeley synchro-cyclotron, completed in
1946, gives a beam of deuterons of 200 MeV, and of
a-particles of 400 MeV. To construct this gigantic
apparatus, 3,500 tons of steel were needed.
The Betatron. The betatron does not have a high
frequency electric field. A variable magnetic field H
sets up an electrical field E which, in turn, induces a
magnetic field H'. The field H' tends to oppose the
variations of H. The acceleration is produced in a
circular chamber between the poles of an annular
electro-magnet. The poles are constructed so as to
assure a stable trajectory for the particle.
The betatron is particularly suitable for acceler-
ating electrons. These are introduced with an energy
of 60 K?V and accelerated in a chosen orbit by the
induced electric field. When they hit a target, high
energy y-radiation is produced which can be used
for splitting nuclei (photo-nuclear reactions).
The energy obtained in the betatron is set an upper
limit by the radius of the trajectory and by the
maximum intensity of the magnetic field.
The betatron provides electrons of 25 MeV, its

weight is 5 tons, the orbital radius is 20 cm, and the
magnetic field at the orbit is 4,000 gauss.
The Synchrotron. The synchrotron has an annular
electromagnet like the Betatron, and an accelerator
which, like that of the cyclotron, consists of a num-
ber N of accelerating electrodes to which an A.C.
field is applied. The accelerated particles are kept on
a stable orbit with mean radius p by means of
changes in the field H and by modulating the fre-
quency of the alternating potential. The particles
bunch into a packet which receives N accelerating
impulses per turn.
In the synchrotron, the ions must first be passed
through an electrostatic device to give them just
the right energy needed for introducing them into
their orbit by the accelerator circuit.
In the electron-synchrotron, the electrons are
first accelerated by a betatron to a velocity close to
that of light. They are then introduced into the
synchrotron at an energy of 2MeV.
The synchrotron at Cornell University weighs 738
tons, the radius of the orbit is about one metre, and
the electrons have an energy of 300 MeV when they
strike the target.
In the proton-synchrotron the preliminary acceler-
ator is of the Van de Graaf type. From it, the protons
are introduced into the synchrotron proper with an
energy of between 3 and 10 Mt'V.
The main characteristics of such an accelerator
are quite astounding:
1650 tons of steel.
70 tons of copper,
Maximum current in the magnetic lenses: 7,000 A,
Orbital radius: 10 metres,
Energy of protons on leaving the synchrotron:
3,000 million electron volts.
These figures (cosmotron of Brookhaven) have
been exceeded by the bevatron of Berkeley, which
provides protons with an energy of 6,200 million
electron volts.
These accelerators are a long way from the original
models presented by Cockcroft and Lawrence in
1933. Even so, the possibilities of the less powerful
accelerators are by no means exhausted.
constitute
a nucleonr
antinucleon
pair
Fig. 35
Creation of anti-nucleons through the collision of two nucleons.
The inertial mass of the electron represents an

energy of 0-510 MeV. An energy of 1-02 MeV is
therefore needed for creating an e + , e~ pair. This
energy was found in cosmic radiation and in the
radiation of certain radio-active elements. Anti-
electrons could therefore be observed in the labor-
atory without all this tremendous effort.
The creation of a pair of mesons, with a mass 200
times that of the electron, requires an energy of 200
MeV. Though this energy could not have been
achieved with the smaller accelerators, processes
involving this energy are present in cosmic radiation,

in which mesons were in fact first observed. On the
other hand, since the mass of the proton is 1,840
times that of the electron, 938 MeV is needed to
create it, and 1,876 MeV for creating a pair of
nucleons.
In the Berkeley experiment, this amount of energy
was, in fact, supplied by the collision of two nucleons.
If the incident nucleon has the kinetic energy W 0
before the collision it will have the kinetic energy
Wj after the collision, while the target nucleus will
be deflected with kinetic energy W 2 . The two newly
created nucleons will have the energies W , and W 4
and an energy of approximately 2,000 M^V will
have gone into their creation.
By the law of the conservation of energy, we can
represent conditions before and after the collision:
W 0 = 2,000 MeV + W, + W 2 + W 3 + W 4 .
The equation shows that roughly W 0 — 6,000
M f V is needed for the creation of a pair of nucleons.
With this enormous amount of energy, new anti-
particles could be created, the validity of the theory
could be tested and new phenomena might be
observed.
These great energies, these gigantic machines,
these towers of concrete and steel, this fantastic
expenditure, this mobilisation of manpower and
resources were therefore needed if physicists were
to test the validity of Dirac's suggestion that there
were negative energy levels for protons, which were
normally occupied, but which when unoccupied
would appear as anti-protons.
10
Production of Anti-Nucleons
While the construction of giant accelerators was

proceeding apace, cosmic ray specialists were con-
centrating on the development of new photographic
plate techniques.
In 1947, scientists had observed that an enormous
amount of energy was liberated whenever an ionising
cosmic particle passing through a photographic
emulsion was stopped in its path. By 1954, the study
of the energy processes represented by some of these
photographic tracks had led scientists to suspect
that the tracks were due to the annihilation of anti-
protons or anti-hyperono.
Like anti-electrons, anti-protons were probably
fkst observed in cosmic radiation, later to be re-
created in the laboratory.
The reader will remember that, during 1930-1932,
scientists were busily repeating Rutherford's experi-
ments on the absorption of high-velocity y-radiation.
At that time, 'high energy' referred to energies
greater than one million electron-volts. Nowadays
this figure has become outdated, and when we speak
of high energy today, we mean energies greater
than 1,000 million electron-volts.
The reader will therefore not be surprised to learn
107
of the corresponding advances in technique. Many

laboratories have, in fact, been turned into veritable
factories employing a vast number of specialists.
The electroscope, the Wilson cloud-chamber,
and the Geiger counter are things of the past; in
their stead new detection-techniques have been
developed. We shall now examine these very briefly.
1. Plate techniques. A photographic emulsion
consisting of micro-crystals of silver bromide (AgBr)
in gelatine is deposited on a glass plate.
When an ionised particle passes through the
emulsion, it loses some of its energy, with the result
that the silver bromide crystals along its path turn
into grains of silver which are detectable when the
emulsion is developed. If these grains are sufficiently
close to one another (which depends on the amount
of energy dissipated per unit length of path), they
form a track representing the path of the particle
through the emulsion. From the length of the track
the energy of the particle can be calculated, and from
the distribution of the silver grains along the track,
its mass can be evaluated.
Plate techniques have been greatly improved
within the last two years, particularly for the study
of cosmic rays and mesons.
2. The Scintillation counter. The scintillation
counter is generally made up of a sodium iodide
crystal (or another transparent substance) in which
the absorption of a particle or of y-radiation pro-
duces ionisation phenomena, and a photo-multiplier
which transforms the light emitted by the crystal
into a measurable electric current.
When an ionising particle hits an atom inside
PRODUCTION OF ANTI-NUCLEONS 109
the crystal, it disturbs the electronic structure of that

atom. Its return to the stable state is accompanied
by the emission of light, i.e. by a series of scintilla-
tions along the path of the particle in the crystal.
This light, the intensity of which is proportional
to the energy lost by the ionising particle through
absorption, is directed at the sensitised layer of a
photo-multiplier from which it ejects electrons
(photo-electric effect). These electrons are in turn
accelerated by the constant potential and multiplied
by the action of special electrodes (dynodes) of
ever-increasing potential.
By means of the photo-multiplier, the electric
charge has been magnified by a factor of 106 to 109,
and can therefore be detected. It is proportional to
the energy of the particles absorbed in the crystal.
Thus, unlike the Geiger-Muller counter, the scintilla-
tion counter not only detects the ionisation pheno-
mena, but also measures the energies involved.
3. Cerenkov counters. When a particle of great
velocity passes through a solid transparent medium,
it may, under certain circumstances, emit electro-
magnetic radiation known as Cerenkov radiation.
For this to happen, the velocity of light in the solid
medium must be lower than the velocity of the
particle.
If n is the refractive index of the transparent
medium, and c is the velocity of light in vacuo, the
velocity of light in the solid medium is: u = cjn. The
condition for the emission of Cerenkov radiation is
v > u, where'v is the velocity of the particle.
The Cerenkov effect can be compared to a shock
wave produced by a bullet travelling with super-
sonic velocity. A disturbance then takes place within

a cone whose apex is formed by the bullet. The
vertical angle 9 is defined by
cos 9n = V-
v
The angle 9 is therefore a measure of the kinetic
energy of the bullet or, in our case, the particle.
Cerenkov radiation can be used for detecting high
energy particles such as protons with kinetic energies
greater than 300 MeV.
Let us now return to Berkeley, with its giant
synchro-cyclotron capable of producing a-particles
of 380 MeV. At the beginning of 1948, mesons were
detected on photographic plates placed near the
carbon target of this instrument. Their trajectory
ended in a 'star', representing the break-up of a
nucleus with which the meson had collided.
Theory had once again been borne out by experi-
ment, and since then, Ti-mesons have been produced
by the use of y-rays of 335 MeV obtained from the
synchrotron. In this reaction a neutron is transformed
into a proton:
y + N P + 7t-
Transmutation on the nuclear scale (1920) had
thus given way to transformations of the very
particles of which the nucleus is made up.
In 1955, scientists at Berkeley were ready to
tackle the creation of the anti-proton.
The anti-proton. Theoretically, two different
methods could be used for the creation of the proton-
anti-proton pair.
PRODUCTION OF A N T I - N U C L E O N S 111
1. The collision of a proton p with a nucleon J\"

p + X p + X' + P + P
In this type of reaction, the incident proton must
have the kinetic energy 5,600 M^V.
2. The creation is effected in two stages; the
preliminary creation of an high energy 71-meson leads
to the creation of an anti-proton after collision with
an JV1 nucleon:
n + X -» ,,V + p + p.
This process, though more complicated, requires
incident protons of smaller energy (4,100 MeV).
(The Berkeley bevatron could produce a beam of
protons of 6,200 MeV).
The production of a new particle is one thing.
Its detection, i.e. the demonstration of its character-
istic properties, is another. The main problem was,
indeed, to perfect identification techniques, the
exact details of which fall outside the scope of this
book. The general principles employed are, however,
as follows.
As it left the bevatron, the proton beam was
intercepted by a copper screen. This screen, which
provided the nucleons, gave off a host of charged
and neutral particles amongst which the anti-protons
had now to be identified.
Deflection by the magnetic field of the bevatron
made possible the preliminary selection of negative
particles only. Apart from anti-protons, these con-
sisted of a large quantity of 7r~-mesons.
Anti-protons had therefore to be distinguished
from the mesons by their respective masses.
Every particle (n~ and p~) can be characterised by

its kinetic energy t mv2 and by its m o m e n t u m
p =- mv. Once p and v are known, the mass of the
particle can be calculated.
Fig. 36
Experimental arrangement used with bevatron (Berkeley, Calif.). Im-
pulses registered hv the counters S,. S 2 and C],
A system of magnetic and electric lenses M],

Qi. Q 2 , M 2 . can be used for focussing negative
particles with the same momentum on a scintillation
counter S 2 with an accuracy of 2 per cent (Fig. 36).
From the knowledge of the masses it was known
that the value of p chosen corresponded to a velocity
v p - 0-78 c for a proton and to a velocity vn 0-99
c for a meson. To separate anti-protons from the
7i--mesons the particles were passed through another
scintillation counter Sj. placed 12 metres along their
path in front of S 2 .
While rt _ -mesons took 4.10 - 8 sec. to clear the
distance between the two scintillators Si and S 2 ,
anti-protons of the same momentum took 5-1.10 —8

sec. The coincidence circuit connecting Si and S 2
was thus adjusted to count only impulses separated
by 5 1.10—8 sec., i.e. to eliminate the 7t~-mesons.
To make doubly sure, the negative particles—all
of the same momentum—were further passed
through two Cerenkov counters Q and C 2 and a
third scintillator S3. The counter Q is sensitive to all
charged particles with a velocity greater than 0-79 c,
while the counter C 2 is sensitive to particles with a
velocity ranging between
0-75 c < v < 0-78 c
Clearly, while Q records the passage of 7t~-mesons,
C 2 registers the passage of anti-protons.
By establishing a further coincidence circuit

between S[, S 2 and C 2 , two independent determina-
tions of the velocity could be made. A third scintill-
ator S 3 was placed behind S ( , S 2 and C 2 , to make
perfectly certain that the detected particle had
crossed C 2 along its axis.
On the 24th October 1955, the physicists of

Berkeley could claim that they had detected sixty
anti-protons to date.
Anti-protons were also detected on photographic
plates. Their annihilation was marked by an eight-
branched star representing heavy particles—prob-
ably protons—and light particles, n-mesons (Fig. 37),
In March 1956, a plate exposed to a proton beam
from the bevatron, showed a line connecting two
high-energy stars. This line was identified as belong-
ing to an anti-proton of kinetic energy 710 MeV.
A calculation of the energy represented by the
second star showed that the liberated energy must
have exceeded 1,460 MeV.
While the first star was due to the collision be-
tween a proton and a heavy nucleus with the conse-
quent creation of an anti-proton, the second star
represented the annihilation of that anti-proton.
The annihilation of the anti-proton is corrobor-
ative evidence for its creation.
For the last few years, theoreticians have been
wondering what would happen when an anti-
nucleon collides with a corresponding nucleon. Like
the e+, e~ pair, the two nucleons ought to annihilate
each other with the consequent liberation of energy.
In the case of the p+, p~ pair, this energy is 2 M p c 2 .
It was thought that while this annihilation might
be accompanied by the creation of two photons (as
frequently happens in the case of electron collisions),
the more probable process was the emission of two
7i-mesons of equal and opposite momentum.
Fermi even asserted that the available energy was
great enough to produce more than two mesons and
that other processes (the emission of heavy particles)

were even more probable.
It was this, which had, in fact, been observed on
photographic plates at Berkeley.
The anti-neutron. Neutrons, as we have seen, are
exceedingly difficult to detect. Their lack of charge,
and the consequent absence of ionising effects mean
that neutrons leave no trace on photographic plates
and pass through scintillation counters with little
chance of detection. On the other hand, when an
anti-neutron is destroyed, it liberates the energy
M n c 2 and can then be detected.
Photo -mu/tipl/ers
o o
Efif&l"
Antiprotons
D X
o O Antineuti^
m
Q-Paa
s, Pb s 2
P.M
Fig. 38
Experimental arrangement to demonstrate the existence of anti-neutrons.
The anti-neutrons pass through the scintillation counters S] and S 2
without being detected. When they are annihilated in the Cerenkov
counter C, the photo-multipliers record the light emitted. This is pro-
portional to the energy liberated. F, counter recording 300 to 600 anti-
protons per hour. X, anti-proton-anti-neutron converter. Pb, lead screen
for converting high energy y-radiation into electrons.
Anti-neutrons were produced from anti-protons

when, during a collision, they exchanged charges
(Fig. 38). Even so, the effect was weak and a very
strong beam of protons was required to demonstrate
it-
300-600 anti-protons per hour were fed into an
anti-proton anti-neutron 'convenor'. The newly
created anti-neutrons were then passed undetected

through the scintillators S ( and S 2 finally to be
annihilated in a Cerenkov counter. The magnitude
of the resulting impulse gives a measure of the
energy liberated by the annihilation of a nucleon-
anti-nucleon pair.
Other neutral radiation is also emitted from the
convertor, namely neutral mesons heavier than 7i0
mesons and y-radiation. Neutral mesons produce
weak impulses in the Cerenkov counter, and y-
radiation is converted into electrons by a lead screen
placed between the scintillators Sj and S 2 .
The distribution of impulses produced by the
anti-neutrons was compared with the energy spec-
trum of the anti-protons. The spectra were found to
be comparable, and the existence of anti-neutrons
was thus established.
Since then, the new anti-particles have been the
object of the most careful studies, though these are
necessarily difficult because of the weak intensities
available. Even so, scientists have been able to
compare the absorption of anti-protons and protons
by beryllium and copper. The absorption of anti-
protons was found to be about twice that of protons.
Does this mean that the anti-proton has a greater
radius than the proton, or that nuclei behave dif-
ferently in the vicinity of anti-protons? While it is
too early to say, the first assumption must be re-
jected out of hand, since the factor 2 does not apply
equally to copper and to beryllium.
Similar and other questions can be asked about
the anti-neutron. Is the anti-neutron, like the neutron,
an unstable particle, and does it disintegrate to give
PRODUCTION OF ANTI-NUCLEONS 117
an anti-proton, a positive electron and an anti-

neutrino? The answer lies in the hands of the experi-
mental physicists.
11
Matter and Antimatter
We have seen how the study of electric discharges

in cathode-ray tubes led to the detection of the
electron, and how Rutherford's work brought in its
wake the exploration of the nucleus with the subse-
quent discovery of its constituents, the proton and
the neutron. The study of P-decay led to the dis-
covery of the neutrino, and that of nuclear stability
to the discovery of mesons.
We can now construct an entirely new model of the
atom.
At the centre, it has a nucleus in which protons
and neutrons are held together by the exchange of
vfi, 7t+ and n~ mesons. This nucleus is surrounded
by electrons, which often revolve at considerable
distances from it and envelop the central positive
charge with an atmosphere of negative electricity.
We know that this model is based both on classical
physics and on wave mechanics. The Bohr-Sommer-
feld atom helps us to bridge the gap between abstract
verbal concepts of discontinuity and their mathe-
matical expression.
Once we adopt this picture of matter, we are
forced to look into the problem of antimatter also.
Now, the idea of antimatter arose as a direct
result of mathematical considerations which had
118
MATTER AND ANTIMATTER 119
come to replace what were felt to be inadequate
visual representations of the atom. These mathe-
matical considerations were:
1. Relativity theory, which introduced a new
expression for the energy of the particle
(E = ± C\ />- NIT)R~).
2. Quantum theory, which led to the consideration

of negative energies.
3. Relativistic wave mechanics, which gave a
correct representation of the properties of the
electron.
We have seen how the theory of holes, by giving
a definite meaning to electrons of negative energy,
was able to predict the existence of new particles and
to give a precise definition of their properties.
Particle and anti-particle only differ in the signs of
their charge and of their magnetic moment.
Theoretically predicted in 1930, anti-particles
were soon to be demonstrated experimentally. The
first to be detected was the anti-electron, or positive
electron. Further progress had to await the con-
struction of giant accelerators, when n~ and n +
mesons could be produced in the synchro-cyclotron,
and anti-protons and anti-neutrons in the bevatron.
More recently still, atomic piles have been used to
prove the existence of the neutrino and the anti-
neutrino, and by the end of 1956, all the anti-
particles necessary for building a model of anti-
matter had been observed. The present-day picture
is, then, as follows:
The central anti-nucleus is made up of anti-
protons and anti-neutrons, held together by the
exchange of and n + mesons. The anti-nucleus

is surrounded by enti-electrons which often revolve
at considerable distances from it and envelop the
central negative charge with an atmosphere of
positive electricity.
Does this picture of the anti-atom represent a
physical reality? In other words, does anti-matter
exist? One way to find out this would be to create
it out of anti-protons and anti-electrons, but un-
fortunately this is a very difficult task. Though
the dematerialisation of matter has long been
achieved, its creation demands temperatures beyond
our normal reach.
A helium nucleus, for instance, cannot simply be
created from two protons and two neutrons, or from
four protons and two negative electrons. These
particles must undergo fusion, a reaction involving
temperatures of the order found at the interior of the
sun, i.e. some millions of degrees.
The formation of a helium nucleus from four
protons takes place in accordance with the following
reactions (carbon cycle):
@ + CJS -> N)3 + Y
N I = - > , C\3 + ©
© + cj3<N!< + r
© + + y
+ ©
©+ @
This series of reactions, in which C 1 2 clearly plays
the role of catalyst, liberates a tremendous amount
of energy. The energy is due to a mass defect in the
newly formed nucleus. Taking the atomic weight of
oxygen as 16, the mass of the proton is 1 007596 and
that of the neutron 1 00898. The four nucleons
together have therefore a mass of 4 033152. Now
the mass of the helium nucleus happens to be 4 00280.
The mass defect of 0-030352 is due to the fusion
which, as we have seen, involves a temperature of
some millions of degrees.
Now, such temperatures do in fact exist in the
stars where such reaction's may easily take place.
On earth, atomic explosions can give such high
temperatures and cause the fusion of nucleons, and
this is the reaction employed in the hydrogen bomb.
Scientists have also succeeded in producing fusion
temperatures in the laboratory, but on a much
smaller scale, in such instruments as Zeta (1958).
In the future, the energy derived from nuclear
fusion may well compete with the energy derived
from nuclear fission in atomic piles.
We have seen how matter can be created from
its constituent elements. Is antimatter to be con-
structed in the same way? If we could fuse an anti-
proton into a positive electron, we might well have
created the simplest anti-atom (anti-hydrogen),
but what would we do with it once we had it?
Our laboratories, and the world in which we
experiment, are made of matter, and anti-particles
are characterised by the fact that they become
annihilated in contact with their sister particles.
How could we prevent the positive hydrogen electron

from meeting one of the negative electrons of which
all matter is constituted? How could we preserve
anti-hydrogen so that we might use it for synthesising
anti-helium? How, in short, could we do experiments
with antimatter at all?
Antimatter probably has a structure identical
with that of matter, and it is not unreasonable to
assume that some stars and even galaxies are made
up of it. But we also know that the coexistence of the
two types of matter is, in the present state of our
knowledge, an unreasonable hypothesis, and that
antimatter cannot be produced experimentally at
present. We may, however, talk about it theoretically
or mathematically.
We have seen that, in Relativity theory, the
element ds, which represents the trajectory of the
electron in space-time is given by
ds = ± v d2di2 — da2
Now, if - f d s represents negative electrons with
positive kinetic energy, which move from the past to
the future, —ds represents negative electrons with
negative kinetic energy, which run a course opposite
to that of ordinary time. In other words, the positive
electron is a negative electron retracing the path
of time.
Our reason may well boggle at this. In any case, a
vast new horizon has opened before us, though
physicists are not yet ready to probe all its depths
and secrets; work on anti-particles is in its infancy.
This work may one day throw new light on the
problem of the structure of the elementary particles,
a structure which today hides behind the abstract
formalism of the wave function.
Will physics now return to the making of models,
and seek for the internal structure of the elementary
particle? Will the electron, like the atom, be split
to yield its inner secrets?
It is one of physic's greatest attractions, J. J.
Thomson said, that it lacks fixed limits, each dis-
covery, far from being an end in itself, being but a
pathway to unexplored territory. As long as science
exists, there will always be a host of unresolved
problems, and no physicist need worry about being
kept idle.
INDEX
Anderson. C. D.. 78 Curie, P. and M.. 16. 74

Angular m o m e n t u m , 50t" Cyclotron, 98ff
Anti-electrons, 72
Antimatter, 7. 55. I l8fT D a l t o n , J.. 42
Anti-neutrons, 7. 115f Davisson. C. J.. 57
Anti-nucleons. 96, I071T De Broglie, L„ 55, 56ff
Anti-nucleus, 120 Democritus. l l f f
Anti-particles, 7, 72 Deuterons. 98 '
Anti-protons, 7. 91, 106 Dirac, P.. 8. 30. 63ff. 81. 89.
Artificial radioactivity. 88ff 97, 106
Atom bomb. 9 D u m a s , J.. 13
Becker, 851" Einstein. A.. 19, 26ff, 34. 39

Betatron. 1031' Electron. 14, 39, 61, 73ff
Black-body radiation, 341T Electroscope, 75
Bohr. Niels. 42ff Electrostatic accelerator. 981"
Bohr model. 44fT, 56 Energy levels. 431'
Borel, F.. 19 Epicurus. 12
Bothe. 851' Ether, 10
Euclidian geometry, 20fT. 33
C a r b o n cycle, 120
C a t h o d e rays. 114 Fermi. E., 114
Cerenkov counters. 1091" Eresnel, A., 23
C e r e n k o v effect. 109f
C h a d w i c k , Sir J., 75. 86 Galilean co-ordinates, 21
Classical mechanics. I9FT Galilean t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , 22
C o c k r o f t , J. D „ 971", 105 Galileo, 12, 19
C o m p t o n effect, 79f Geiger-Muller counter, 75ff. 105
C o p e r n i c a n co-ordinates, 21 G e r m e r , 57
C o s m i c rays, 77
C o s m o t r o n , 105 Heisenberg. W „ 55, 58f, 60f
125
Helium nucleus. 86. 120 Perrin, J „ 17, 44
Hertz, 38 f Photoelectric effect, 40f, 79
High-energy physics. 971" Photographic plate technique,
High-frequency radiation. 371' 108
Holes, theory of. 67ff, 82 P h o t o n , 39, 79
Hydrogen bomb, 9 Planck, Max, 36ff, 43
Planck's constant. 37, 57
Indeterminism, 56ff Planetary model, 43f
Isotopes, 74, 86 Positive electron, 73ff
Proportional numbers, 13
Joliot-Curie. I. and F „ 75, 80, Protons, 98
82, 86f Prout. W „ 73
Kepler, J., 12 Q u a n t u m theory, 34ff, 119
Lawrence. E., 98. 105 Radioactivity, 85ff

Lorentz t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , 25f, 65 Rayleigh's Law, 36
Lucretius, 12 Relativity. 19ff, 29ff. 119, 122
R i e m a n n , G „ 3 I f , 44
Magnetic m o m e n t , 51 f Royal Society, 8
Maxwell, J. C., 23 R u t h e r f o r d , Lord E „ 17, 43,
Meson, 941" 74, 97, 107
Michelson and Morley experi-
ment, 23flf Schrodinger, E.. 55. 58f, 64
Millikan. R. A., 78 Scintillation counter, 76, 108f
Minkowski space, 27ff Skobelzyn, 78
M o n o c h r o m a t i c wave, 59f Sommerfeld. A., 42. 47, 53, 56
Sommerfeld model, 48. 62
N e u t r o n . 85ff Spin. 53f
Neutrino. 90tf Stefan-Boltzmann Law, 34f
N e u t r o n . I.. 12, 13, 19, 32 Synchro-cyclotron, 102f
S y n c h r o t r o n . 1041"
Oppenheimer, J. R.. 70
T h i b a u d , J.. 82
Particle accelerators, 97flf T h o m s o n , J. J., 15, 161", 58. 123
Pauli exclusion principle. 55. T h o m s o n , G . P.. 57f
64, 68 T r a n s m u t a t i o n electron. 88
126
Uncertainty relation, 60f Weil, 70
Wilson cloud c h a m b e r , 75ff

V a c u u m , 10
Van de G r a a f accelerator, 98f X-rays, 16, 57
Walton, E „ 97f Y u k a w a , H „ 94f

Wave mechanics, 56ff
Z e e m a n effect, 49ff, 62
127
A n important list of inexpensive reprints
and newly commissioned books o n his-
tory, biography, philosophy, religion, the
arts, archaeology, travel and non-fiction
generally.
SOME RECENT TITLES
Western Mysticism
DOM CUTHBERT BUTLER 5$
Duveen
S. N. BEHRMAN 35 6 d
Poetry of this Age

J. M. COHEN Ss
The Noble Savage

LAWRENCE AND ELISABETH HANSON
3$ 6d
Fabled Shore
ROSE MACAULAY 5*
Tennyson
HAROLD NICOLSON 35 6 D
The Life and Times

of Herod the Great
STEWART PEROWNE 35 6 d
The Living Novel

V. S. PRITCHETT 35 6 d
A selection
of famous modern novels
is also available
arrow
O science
Other Titles in the Series:
Intelligence
Its E v o l u t i o n a n d F o r m s
GASTON VIAUD
Professor of Psychophysiology and Director of the
Laboratory of Animal Psychology, Strasbourg
T h e A n a t o m y o f Plants
P. F O N T QUER
Formerly, Professor of Botany and Director
of the Botanical Institute, Barcelona
The Wider Universe

PAUL COUDERC
Astronome titulaire de VObservatoire de Paris
Space Research
b y R o c k e t a n d Satellite
R. L. F. BOYD
Reader in Physics and Leader of the Space Research
Group at University College, London
Physiology o f Plants
P. F O N T Q U E R
Formerly, Professor of Botany and Director
of the Botanical Institute, Barcelona
arrow science

(Maurice Duquesne) Matter and Antimatter (Arrow SC (BookFi)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Maurice Duquesne) Matter and Antimatter (Arrow SC (BookFi)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matter and

ARROW SCIENCE SERIES

AN IMPRINT OF THE HUTCHINSON GROUP

London Melbourne Sydney

First Published in Great Britain 1960

Made and printed in Great Britain

The reader might wonder why a work setting out to

only because of the old questions it resolves but also

Up to the time when the atom bomb fell on

precise definitions, no matter if these run counter

of 'Being". But hardly a century had passed before

In about 1880, this result led physicists to postulate

This model (see Fig. 1) was used in an attempt to

2. The emission of X-rays of the same nature as,

In this model, the vibrations of the internal rings

Highly complicated calculations and extremely

Referring to the theory of Relativity, Emit Borel

In three-dimensional physical space, the moving

time can be represented by a magnitude t which is

(where dx, dy, dz are infinitely small increments of

have stated that a point M(.v', y\ z\ t') in a reference

Clearly the only co-ordinates affected by the

ether. If the ether were immobile, the observer's

2nd case: v O. O' is displaced in the positive

l>rd case: v < O. O' is displaced in the negative

Since the time remained constant, Lorentz. in

If v/c is small, i.e. if the velocity of O' with respect

If s r is small wc recover the classical law:

Thus the expression ds- c dt — dx2 — di - - dz2

has the same value in all Galilean systems, and like

The negative result of the Michelson-Morley

In relativity dynamics, the momentum p is ex-

(/;' niv) so long as we make m - y'1'0 ^ , (where

/)/o is the inertial mass of the material point, and /;;

In relativity mechanics the energy of a particle is

When the velocity of the particle is zero (v O), its

E can have a positive or negative value, i.e.

Similarly, if ds is positive and dt O in the

in will be positive, and the energy E mc2 will also

x = x\, y = x2, z = X}, ct = .v4

Newton had explained the appearance of gravita-

Despite the inroads it had made into classical ideas

The area under each curve represents the sum

E^ elk, i.e. the total emissive power at that

temperature. A theoretical interpretation of this

whenever an electrical charge becomes displaced

This is shown as a dotted curve in Fig. 8, from

the integral I E c/A becomes infinite also.

The classical treatment of the oscillator model

Just like in the case of matter and electricity, the

On the basis of this hypothesis, the new theory

The Bohr-Sommerfeld Atom

We have seen how J. J. Thomson's and Jean

to the planetary model, and, for the sake of sim-

static attraction ^ between the positively charged

Ze and the force of inertia ——.

Eliminating co between (I) and (2) we obtain:

The kinetic energy of the electron is E r + ma2co2,

Clearly Bohr's model is very attractive—so much

anics to explain the motion of electrons in them.

The doubling of spectral lines under the action

plane defined by the momentum p — mv and the

The quant umjiumber / is proportional to the angular